MALAY SANGHAVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita No. 5682/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Malay N. Sanghvi, I.T.O-8(3)(2) बिधम/ M-1, Kalpita Enclave Co-Op. Aayakar Bhavan, Housing Society, Sahar Road, Churchgage, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai- 20 Mumbai-400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaahe1478G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

10A(7) r.w. sub-section (8) and (10) of Sec. 80IA of ‘Act’. Per contra, the ld. Authorized representative (for short ‘A.R’) for the assessee submitted that the authorities below had till date failed to point out the arrangement between the assessee and his aforesaid sister concern, viz. M/s Umargaum Industries, on the basis of which the entitlement

DCIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JEWELEX INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jewelex India P. Ltd. Circle 14(2) (1) 124C, Mittal Court, Nariman Vs. 434, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-21 Mumbai-20 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj4523H Co No. 60/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 4855/Mum/2016 A.Y:2009-10) Jewelex India P. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 124C, Mittal Court, Nariman Circle 14(2) (1) Vs. 434, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-21 Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-20 .. Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases from the total cost and consequences depreciation is to be disallowed. Accordingly, we restore this matter back to the file of the AO with the above direction. This issue of Revenues appeal is partly allowed as indicated above 6. The next issue in this appeal of Revenue as in the order of CIT(A) allowing carry forward loss

ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI vs. K.P. SANGHAVI & SONS, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 19(2) V. M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons Llp Room No. 207, {Formerly Known As M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons} Gw-7011/7012, Mathru Mandir, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafk 8390 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.237/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12) [Arising Out Of Ita No.2455/Mum/2017] M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons Llp V. A.C.I.T Circle – 19(2) {Formerly Known As M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons} Room No. 207, 2Nd Floor Gw-7011/7012, Mathru Mandir, Tardeo Bharat Diamond Bourse, Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafk 8390 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

bogus purchases. Taking into consideration all 6 CO NO.237/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons LLP these facts and circumstances, the material available on record for this assessment year, and there is no change in the facts of the case, where the same parties are available in the assessments completed for the A.Ys

SHRENUJ GEMS & JEWELLERY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd., Plot No.Gj-09, Seepz++, Marol Industrial Area, Seepz-Sez, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400096 Pan:Aajcs4265M ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer 8(3)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent

Bogus Purchase of Rs. 2,813 10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming rejection by the assessing officer of purchase of consumables of Rs. 2,813 from G. M. International in a routine manner simply because the name of the vendor appeared in the list of "suspicious Dealers" who had issued false bills without delivery

ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. STONES & JEWELLERY (INDIA) P.L;TD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Ito 8(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Stones & Jewellery 201, Aayakar Bhavan (India) Pvt. Ltd., M.K.Marg Gala No.Gj-14 Complex Mumbai – 400 020 No. Sdf-Vii, Seepz-Sez Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 096

bogus purchase in place of 25% addition made by the AO. 3. In the Cross Objection, assessee is aggrieved for upholding reassessment u/s.147 and for upholding addition of 3% and the purchases from M/s. Zalak Impex. 4. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 5. Facts in brief are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

purchase transactions of ₹. 1,92,65,507/- during the relevant year. The same were disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 25.03.2013. The assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit in respect of expenses incurred for land development against the Page

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

purchase transactions of ₹. 1,92,65,507/- during the relevant year. The same were disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 25.03.2013. The assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit in respect of expenses incurred for land development against the Page

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

bogus nor it was shown that the apparent is not real. It was also not shown that the unrelated share applicant has been paid any interest for the period commencing from date of subscription to the date of allotment of shares. It has been held that the amendment made by Finance Act 2012 including capital financing transactions as international transactions

TRIVENI HOMES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 2, THANE

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Triveni Homes Vs. Acit Cc-2 001, Ground Floor Thane - 400604 Balaji Business Park Plot No. 3&5, Survey No.785 Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai Pan/Gir No.Aafft1576R Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Triveni Homes Mumbai 001, Ground Floor Plot Number-3 & 5 Mittal Industrial Estate M.V.Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai

section 10A(3}." 7. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that applicability of provisions of 40A(3) attracts 100% bogus purchases

ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT (OSD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 222/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 223/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) Advance Power Display System Ltd. Unit No.6, Multistoried Building, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan: Aaaca-5970-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Jcit (Osd), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai . अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate With Shri Nishit Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sathya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A) ’] For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, Respectively. Both The Impugned Order Are Of Even Date I.E. 15/11/2018. Since, Identical Issues Are Involved In 2

bogus purchases, despite the fact that they were duly accounted. 2.5 The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated at Bar that he is not pressing additional ground raised in the appeal. 3. On the other hand, Shri Sathya Pinisetty representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted

ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT (OSD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 222/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 223/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) Advance Power Display System Ltd. Unit No.6, Multistoried Building, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan: Aaaca-5970-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Jcit (Osd), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai . अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate With Shri Nishit Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sathya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A) ’] For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, Respectively. Both The Impugned Order Are Of Even Date I.E. 15/11/2018. Since, Identical Issues Are Involved In 2

bogus purchases, despite the fact that they were duly accounted. 2.5 The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated at Bar that he is not pressing additional ground raised in the appeal. 3. On the other hand, Shri Sathya Pinisetty representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted

ROYAL PALMS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus purchase may please be limited to 12.5% of the purchases made from Price Steel P Ltd” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 30.7.2013 declaring total income of Rs.8,41,47,650/-. The return was processed under section 143(1). Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) dated

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

purchase of New Computers, Plant & Machinery were submitted. vii. The assessee company has exported the computer software and earned income from rendering Computer Software related services abroad. Copies of sample invoices along with copies of SOFTEX form filed with custom department. viii. The assessee has received consideration in respect of export into India. (Copy of statement and Certificate of Foreign

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

purchase of New Computers, Plant & Machinery were submitted. vii. The assessee company has exported the computer software and earned income from rendering Computer Software related services abroad. Copies of sample invoices along with copies of SOFTEX form filed with custom department. viii. The assessee has received consideration in respect of export into India. (Copy of statement and Certificate of Foreign

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

purchase of New Computers, Plant & Machinery were submitted. vii. The assessee company has exported the computer software and earned income from rendering Computer Software related services abroad. Copies of sample invoices along with copies of SOFTEX form filed with custom department. viii. The assessee has received consideration in respect of export into India. (Copy of statement and Certificate of Foreign

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

10A, and similar such sections which prescribe the 48 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. specific bifurcation of expenses/separate accounts workings to be done. Even on the principles of the consistency the Assessing Officer was not justified in giving different treatment, other than to treatment of various expenses as given by him in earlier years. For this proposition, we rely