DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

MR. SHAMY E. MAJOR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRL.17(3),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmr. Sammy E. Major Acit, Circle 17(3) 2Nd Floor, Queens Chamber, Room No. 137, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. 89, Maharshi Karve Road, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Marine Lines, Mumbai. Pan – Aahpm0177H (Appellant) (Respondent)

entries. In the backdrop of the aforesaid information the case of the assessee was reopened by the A.O under Sec. 147 of the Act. In compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act the assessee filed his return of income at Rs. 43,88,580/- i.e after withdrawing the claim of deduction that was earlier raised u/s

DCIT 9(3(2), MUMBAI vs. G.L. CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

bogus/accommodation bills from various entities, which used to issue accommodation bills on commission basis without supplying any goods to various assessees. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s 148. After hearing the assessee AO held that during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration the assessee had obtained bogus bills from

BIO-VET INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 25(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5327/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3084/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) M/S Bio-Vet Industries, Dcit – 25(1), बनाम/ Shantivilla, C-11, Pratyasha Kar V. Nr. St. Lawrence School, Bhavan, Devidas Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 103. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadfb 3600 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

bogus/accommodation hawala bills which were also made outside books of accounts , and both the additions were made under the head ‘income from other sources’ . Thus, additions have been made u/s 69 of the Act which is based upon the affidavit given by Shri Chandrakant Thakker, director of the company Subheksha Exports Limited that the said Subheksha Exports Limited is engaged

M/S. BIO- VET INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5327/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3084/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) M/S Bio-Vet Industries, Dcit – 25(1), बनाम/ Shantivilla, C-11, Pratyasha Kar V. Nr. St. Lawrence School, Bhavan, Devidas Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 103. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadfb 3600 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

bogus/accommodation hawala bills which were also made outside books of accounts , and both the additions were made under the head ‘income from other sources’ . Thus, additions have been made u/s 69 of the Act which is based upon the affidavit given by Shri Chandrakant Thakker, director of the company Subheksha Exports Limited that the said Subheksha Exports Limited is engaged

VENUS INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(3)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Venus Industries Income Tax Officer Ward Sr. No. 25, House No.3, Vs. 27(3)(5), Part No. 4, Near Satyam Room No. 428, 4Th Floor, Indl. Estate, Govandi, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Mumbai – 400088 Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Aadfv2546D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, D.R Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/02/2021

entry provider thus, made an addition towards the peak of the purchases of Rs.3,02,349/- under Sec. 69C of the Act. At the time of culminating the assessment the A.O also initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealing income. 3. After the culmination of the assessment proceedings

SEJAL EXPORT (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

Bench: Shri Shamimyahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

271(1)(c) is premature. The appellant denies its liability for such penalty. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(hereinafter, “the Act”) was conducted

MYSTIC ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 with its sub grounds is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Mystic Electronics Ito Ward 10(3)(3) Limited Aaykar Bhavan, 401-A, Pearl Arcade, M.K. Road, Opp. P. K. Jwellers, Maharashtra- 400020. Vs. Dawood Baugh Lane, Off J. P. Road, Maharashtra- 400058. Pan: Aagcp1710R Appellant : Respondent

bogus/accommodation entries. 2. In doing so, the Id. CIT(A) did not appreciate that a. the AO could not have rejected the books of account without establishing the defects, incompleteness and inaccuracies in the accounts of the appellant as required u/s 145(3) of the Act. b. merely because the purchase & sale parties could not be produced, the same cannot

MUKTA AGRICULTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 with its sub grounds is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

bogus/accommodation entries and consequently made the addition @ 1% of such amount which worked out to Rs.40,08,601/- and added the same in the income of the Assessee. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner and filed the following documents as filed before the AO: “i Party wise details of purchases & sales

REKHA RAJESH JOGANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

271(1)(c) to be dropped 2.1. Grounds taken are in respect of addition made under section 68 by denying exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act for the sale proceeds of listed equity shares alleged as penny stock amounting to ₹ 45,21,595/- on the scrip SRK Industries Ltd. and for addition of ₹ 90,432/- under section

ACIT-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. QMAX SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

bogus/accommodation entries of loan amounting to\nINR.16,00,00/- from hawala companies floated by Mr. Pravin Kumar\nJain. The Assessing Officer called on the Assessee to give justification\nfor the loan transactions in the books of accounts. The Assessee\nsubmitted the following details with regard to the loans obtained:\nSr.\nNo.\nName of the concern controlled and managed by\nShri