ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

section 148 dated 29/03/2016. A copy of the reasons recorded was provided to the assessee ded was provided to the assessee vide letter dated 30/05/2016 ide letter dated 30/05/2016 of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected the of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected the of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

section 148 dated 29/03/2016. A copy of the reasons recorded was provided to the assessee ded was provided to the assessee vide letter dated 30/05/2016 ide letter dated 30/05/2016 of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected the of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected the of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected

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

section 3 of Taxation and other axation and other laws (relaxation of certain laws (relaxation of certain provisions) ordinance, 2020, by ordinance, 2020, by way of notification issued, the time limit the time limit for passing the assessment order passing the assessment order was extended up to 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021

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

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

bogus purchases. Therefore, the benefit of Section 270A(6) of the Act cannot be extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A

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

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

bogus purchases. Therefore, the benefit of Section 270A(6) of the Act cannot be extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A

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

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

bogus purchases. Therefore, the benefit of Section 270A(6) of the Act cannot be extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A

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

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

bogus purchases. Therefore, the benefit of Section 270A(6) of the Act cannot be extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A

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

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

bogus purchases. Therefore, the benefit of Section 270A(6) of the Act cannot be extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A

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

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

bogus purchases. Therefore, the benefit of Section 270A(6) of the Act cannot be extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A