DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the enalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act are initiated separately." Act are initiated separately." During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the evidence/documents regarding these

UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the enalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act are initiated separately." Act are initiated separately." During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the evidence/documents regarding these

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

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

Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. Now, in order to Now, in order to appreciate the submission it would be appreciate the submission it would be necessary to consider the Judgment of the Delhi High Court necessary

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

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

Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. recourse to the provisions of Section 68 was not in order. Now, in order to Now, in order to appreciate the submission it would be appreciate the submission it would be necessary to consider the Judgment of the Delhi High Court necessary

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68, M/s. Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. section 69, section 69A, section 698, Section 690 for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

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

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

68,426/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015 only the addition to the extent of INR.5,18,153/- got sustained. 9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section

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

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

68,426/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015 only the addition to the extent of INR.5,18,153/- got sustained. 9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section

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

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

68,426/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015 only the addition to the extent of INR.5,18,153/- got sustained. 9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section

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

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

68,426/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015 only the addition to the extent of INR.5,18,153/- got sustained. 9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section

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

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

68,426/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015 only the addition to the extent of INR.5,18,153/- got sustained. 9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section

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

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

68,426/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015 only the addition to the extent of INR.5,18,153/- got sustained. 9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section

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

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

68,426/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015 only the addition to the extent of INR.5,18,153/- got sustained. 9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section

DCIT CC 1, MUMBAI vs. SANJU KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

penalty under section 271D, came up for hearing before the first appellate authority, finding that addition made under section 68

AURO GOLD JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68,84,409, under section 115JB of the Act. While completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made various additions which resulted in determination of total income at ` 63,99,61,340. The additions made by the A.O. are as under:– i) Addition on account of labour charges ` 38,11,78,904 Addition

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 1997-98. Since similar issues are involved and these appeals were heard together, they are being disposed off by way of this common order. M/s. Precision Containeurs Ltd. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 Assessment Year 1996-97 2.1.1 The assessee, engaged

ACIT. CIR.-9(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S VASPARR FISCHER LTD. (NOW M/S. PRESIDENT CONTAINERS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 1997-98. Since similar issues are involved and these appeals were heard together, they are being disposed off by way of this common order. M/s. Precision Containeurs Ltd. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 Assessment Year 1996-97 2.1.1 The assessee, engaged

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 1997-98. Since similar issues are involved and these appeals were heard together, they are being disposed off by way of this common order. M/s. Precision Containeurs Ltd. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 Assessment Year 1996-97 2.1.1 The assessee, engaged

RAK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings\nunder section 271AAC(1) were initiated separately.\n5. The Assessing Officer further observed