BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment order dated 04.03.2015 disallowed entire amoun entire amount of bogus purchase t of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.9,87,466/-. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of bogus purchases in assessment year

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment order dated 04.03.2015 disallowed entire amoun entire amount of bogus purchase t of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.9,87,466/-. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of bogus purchases in assessment year

SHAFIQ AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shafiq Ahmed, Dy. Cit Circle-41(1)(1), Flat No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Building Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Vs. No. 1 Om Sai Ekta (Sra), (East), Society, Cts No. 216, Gillbert Mumbai-400051. Hill Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aowpa 3264 Q Appellant Respondent

natural justice are not mere technical formalities but are intended to ensure substantive mere technical formalities but are intended to ensure substantive mere technical formalities but are intended to ensure substantive fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings. While the assessee is judicial proceedings. While the assessee is judicial proceedings. While the assessee is expected to be vigilant in pursuing its remedies

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

natural justice namely ural justice namely that the assessee will be given full opportunity to cross examine that the assessee will be given full opportunity to cross examine that the assessee will be given full opportunity to cross examine and rebut the evidence gathered behind his back and that he will and rebut the evidence gathered behind his back

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

natural Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Priyanka Sandeep Runwal Priyanka Sandeep Runwal justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of ₹56,00,000/- justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of made for Assessment Year 2014 made for Assessment Year

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

natural Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Priyanka Sandeep Runwal Priyanka Sandeep Runwal justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of ₹56,00,000/- justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of made for Assessment Year 2014 made for Assessment Year

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

natural Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Assessing Officer and that no violation of the princ Priyanka Sandeep Runwal Priyanka Sandeep Runwal justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of ₹56,00,000/- justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of justice had occurred. Accordingly, the addition of made for Assessment Year 2014 made for Assessment Year

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

natural justice. 14. As far as the information clai 14. As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not med in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

natural justice. 14. As far as the information clai 14. As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not med in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

natural justice. 14. As far as the information clai 14. As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not med in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

natural justice. 14. As far as th As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the e information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

natural justice. 14. As far as th As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the e information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

natural justice. 14. As far as th As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the e information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession

MISHRA GANESHA RAM ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

natural justice. Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 14. As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found same was not found from the possession

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI vs. SUNIL BHAGWATLAL DALAL, MUMBAI

natural justice of the assesse and\nhence the addition of Rs. 16,81,00,000/- u/s. 68 may be deleted.\n3.\nAt the outset, it was noticed that the instant appeals of the\nRevenue are delayed by six days. In this regard, an application for\ncondonation of the delay has been submitted alongwith an affidavit\nmainly attributing the delay

ACIT-(CC)-7(3), MUMBAI vs. JAY JAGANNATH STEEL AND POWER LIMITED, ODISHA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

justice to\nPage 5\nITA No. 5600/Mum/2024\nA.Y. 2018-19\nJay Jagannath Steel and Power Limited\nprevail, cross examination as requested was providing by issuing\nsummon to the M/s Hind Unitrade u/s 131(1)(b) dated 20.03.2023\nfixing date for issuing summon to the M/s Hind Unitrade u/s 131(1)(b)\ndated 20.03.2023 fixing date for 23.03.2023. On fixed date

MOHAN JEJUMAL THADANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

reassessment proceedings and\npassing assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. It is pleaded\nthat the above ground was inadvertently omitted to be taken in the\nappeal memo filed before the ITAT. It is requested that the same be\nadmitted for adjudication in the interest of natural justice

MRS RAJANI S. IYER,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-20(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita No. 2239 & 2240/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, Acit-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaopi 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

reassessment is bad in law and need to quashed. to quashed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the assessee in support of his conte support of his contention relied on the decision of the Hon’ble ntion relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Court in the case