M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

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

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , MUMBAI

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

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

depreciation claimed thereon. It is therefore a case where the purchases were indeed made, but the parties, who the assessee claims to have supplied these purchases, are not genuine. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bholanath Polyfab (P.) Ltd. (355 ITR 290) wherein

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment\norder. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting\ndocuments. These were also verified by the AO and found in order.\n14.7. It is also reported by the AO in the remand report that on analysis\nof the documentary evidences revealed that the details of delivery of\ngoods along

SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. 3(4), CENT. RANGE - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

purchases. The AO added 100% of the amount so capitalized and the Ld CIT(A) & ITAT restricted the addition to 12.50%. During the year under consideration, the assessee has brought forward WDV of those assets and claimed depreciation thereon. Since the AO had disallowed the depreciation in the earlier years treating the amount so capitalized as bogus

SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. 3(4), CENT. RANGE - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

purchases. The AO added 100% of the amount so capitalized and the Ld CIT(A) & ITAT restricted the addition to 12.50%. During the year under consideration, the assessee has brought forward WDV of those assets and claimed depreciation thereon. Since the AO had disallowed the depreciation in the earlier years treating the amount so capitalized as bogus

SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. 3(4), CENT. RANGE - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

purchases. The AO added 100% of the amount so capitalized and the Ld CIT(A) & ITAT restricted the addition to 12.50%. During the year under consideration, the assessee has brought forward WDV of those assets and claimed depreciation thereon. Since the AO had disallowed the depreciation in the earlier years treating the amount so capitalized as bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

bogus purchases for the year under consideration. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed and grounds Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. Page 11 of 24 ITA NO. 1213 & 2164/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2020-21) Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd 9. With regard to Ground No. 4, which is in respect of disallowance

VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

bogus purchases for the year under consideration. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed and grounds Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. Page 11 of 24 ITA NO. 1213 & 2164/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2020-21) Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd 9. With regard to Ground No. 4, which is in respect of disallowance

DCIT- CC5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies \nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these \ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the \ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

purchased\nas required in medical camps. According to the AO, these medical kits\nlike lipid profile test, sugar testing kit, thermometer, urine kits,\npregnancy sticks etc., which were purchased for the camps were gifted\nto the doctors who attended the camp and thus held that this\n70\nITA No.879 to 883/M/2021\n& Others (Assessee & Revenue)\nA.Y

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

purchased\nas required in medical camps. According to the AO, these medical kits\nlike lipid profile test, sugar testing kit, thermometer, urine kits,\npregnancy sticks etc., which were purchased for the camps were gifted\nto the doctors who attended the camp and thus held that this\n71\nITA No.879 to 883/M/2021\n& Others (Assessee & Revenue)\nA.Y

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies\nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these\ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the\ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

purchased\nas required in medical camps. According to the AO, these medical kits\nlike lipid profile test, sugar testing kit, thermometer, urine kits,\npregnancy sticks etc., which were purchased for the camps were gifted\nto the doctors who attended the camp and thus held that this\n71\nITA No.879 to 883/M/2021\n& Others (Assessee & Revenue)\nA.Y