DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

6 M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 found in documentary evidence found in documentary evidence filed , no disallowance was called , no disallowance was called for. 6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

6 M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 found in documentary evidence found in documentary evidence filed , no disallowance was called , no disallowance was called for. 6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the relief given by the CIT(A) towards bogus purchases. 4. The brief facts pertaining to the issue under consideration – The AO during the course of assessment proceeding issued notice under section 133(6

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance by issuing notice under section 133(6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance by issuing notice under section 133(6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance by issuing notice under section 133(6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6) of the Act were sent to Mohd Salim Khan (Star Scrap Steel), Mashhor Alam Sabir Khan (S K Scrap Trading), and Shafik Ahmed Mumtaz Khan (SK Steel Traders) and that the Assessing Officer had proceeded to disallow

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6) of the Act were sent to Mohd Salim Khan (Star Scrap Steel), Mashhor Alam Sabir Khan (S K Scrap Trading), and Shafik Ahmed Mumtaz Khan (SK Steel Traders) and that the Assessing Officer had proceeded to disallow

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SYSTEMATIX HOLDINGS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit-2(3)(1), M/S Systematix Holding R.No. 552, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, J K Somani Bldg. Mumbai-400020. British Hotel Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaics 4642 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Kabra Revenue By : Dr. Koshor Dule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

disallowed the long term capital loss amounting to Rs.11,87,26,561/- determining total income at Rs.5,29,73,730/ determining total income at Rs.5,29,73,730/-. determining total income at Rs.5,29,73,730/ M/s Systematix Holding 3 M/s Systematix Holding ITA No. No. 470/M/2023 Officer on the basis of the 4.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Subsequently, the Assessing

HITESH UGAMRAJ MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24

133(6), confirming the transactions. They are independent tax-paying entities who file returns under Section paying entities who file returns under Section paying entities who file returns under Section 44AD. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted that the immediate withdrawal 44AD. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted that the immediate withdrawal 44AD. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance to the same set of vendors cannot be given without any\nbasis since transactions pertaining to each AY are different. From the perusal of\nOrder Giving Effect passed for AY 2007-08 we notice that the AO has reduced the\ndisallowance by issuing notice under section 133(6

ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

disallowed the sum with respect to only 4 parties as the learned assessing officer has issued notices under section 133 (6

PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

disallowed the sum with respect to only 4 parties as the learned assessing officer has issued notices under section 133 (6

DCIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIDENT MARBLES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the R the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment evenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 994 & 995/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Trident Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan (Annexe), Airport Side Service Road, Vile M.K. Road, Churchgate, Parle (E), Mumbai-400099. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act were duly served on ct were duly served on the unsecured loan parties the unsecured loan parties, but still he had relied on the report of on the report of the investigation wing that those parties were not found by the gation wing that those parties were not found by the gation wing that

DCIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIDENT MARBLES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the R the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment evenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 994 & 995/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Trident Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan (Annexe), Airport Side Service Road, Vile M.K. Road, Churchgate, Parle (E), Mumbai-400099. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act were duly served on ct were duly served on the unsecured loan parties the unsecured loan parties, but still he had relied on the report of on the report of the investigation wing that those parties were not found by the gation wing that those parties were not found by the gation wing that

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

133(6) of the Act to M/s Taral for verifying whether actual for verifying whether actual work was carried out, however the notice returned unserved with work was carried out, however the notice returned unserved with work was carried out, however the notice returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’. Accordingly the Assessing Officer the remark ‘ not known’. Accordingly

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

133(6) of the Act to M/s Taral for verifying whether actual for verifying whether actual work was carried out, however the notice returned unserved with work was carried out, however the notice returned unserved with work was carried out, however the notice returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’. Accordingly the Assessing Officer the remark ‘ not known’. Accordingly