INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that AO has clearly stated his reason for levying the Penalty 12% which is on reduced profit percentage to 12.32% of unproven bogus purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that AO has clearly stated his reason for levying the Penalty 12% which is on reduced profit percentage to 12.32% of unproven bogus purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,41,77,979/ amounting to Rs.2,41,77,979/ - is treated as assessee's u is treated as assessee's unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the expenditure u/s

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,41,77,979/ amounting to Rs.2,41,77,979/ - is treated as assessee's u is treated as assessee's unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the expenditure u/s

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases. Therefore, it could be a case that concerns of Shri P.K.Agarwal might not have made purchases from concerns of Shri Kokate of the steels but from somewhere else and thereafter would have supplied to the assessee. It is also a fact that Shri P.K.Agarwal Reliance Industries Ltd 133A on 6.1.2005 and u/s

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

bogus expense Penalty U/S 271(1) © rws 274 of the rws 274 of the Act, is initiate for concealment of Income concealment of Income.” 7.5 On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it had filed

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied 7 ITA Nos.2100 & 2101/MUM/2025/AYs.2009-10 & 2010-11 Chetan Pravin Chitalia on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

HITESH JAYANTILAL MODI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 32(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hitesh Jayantilal Modi (Huf) Income-Tax Officer- Ward 32(1)(5), B-302, Mahvideh, Near Municipal Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Garden, Chandavarkar Road, Mumbai. Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aabhh 3508 K Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases amount and according penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing penalty proceedings u/s 271

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas\nthe appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act .\n10.7 The cases relied upon by the ld. DR in the cases of Steel Infots\nLtd. (supra) and Kuttookaran Machine Tools (supra) are not\napplicable to the facts of the present case as in that case the\nassessee made bogus claim to evade tax and claim was also proved\nto be bogus. Accordingly

NAVEEN KUMAR, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases.? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271

ITO-13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. P-CUBE CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Rev

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-13(1)(1), P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., 225, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar Vs. Churchgate, Vishweshwar Nagar Road, Off Mumbai-400020. Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aadcp 9320 N Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases, the addition sustained he addition sustained being on the estimate basis being on the estimate basis, no penalty u/s 271