DIAGOLD DESIGNS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Diagold Designs Limited, Cc2070, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-12(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Aabcd3716 ..... Respondent

bogus purchases from the parties mentioned in the assessment order be deleted. Gr. III 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering business loss of Rs. 1,47,80,729/- which included depreciation allowance of Rs. 31,26,475/-, quantified as per Profit and Loss Account and Income Tax return filed. 2. He failed to appreciate that: a) Business

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

bogus purchases and has never retracted such admission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the impugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has not been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases and has never retracted such admission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the impugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has not been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

bogus purchases and has never retracted such\nadmission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings,\nthe assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the\nimpugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has\nnot been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

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

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

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

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

purchase of another depreciable asset as provided in Section 50 13 Mcnally Bharat Kolkata ITAT 100/Kol/2011 Retention money 41 to 43 Engineering Co. Ltd. 14 Delhi Gymkhana Delhi ITAT 3585/Del/2006 Income exempt as per 13 Club Ltd. doctrine of mutuality 15 Goldgerg Finance Mumbai ITAT 7496/Mum/2013 Share from AOP which 11 Pvt. Ltd. was not taxable under normal provisions

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

purchased and sold mutual funds to the tune of Rs.133 crores. Hence it cannot be said that it did not use various resources of its business for the purpose of carrying above said activities. It is the submission of the assessee that the increase in investments is due to increase in shares of foreign subsidiaries, whose dividend income is taxable

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

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

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

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

bogus purchases was made on the technical reason that the said suppliers have not paid VAT amount, which would disentitle the assessee to claim VAT credit and hence the assessee cannot effectively prove the genuineness of purchases. If the re-revised VAT returns have been accepted by the VAT authorities and the assessee got the credit of VAT amount

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

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

bogus purchases was made on the technical reason that the said suppliers have not paid VAT amount, which would disentitle the assessee to claim VAT credit and hence the assessee cannot effectively prove the genuineness of purchases. If the re-revised VAT returns have been accepted by the VAT authorities and the assessee got the credit of VAT amount

ASSTT. CIT -CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LUPIN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

bogus purchases was made on the technical reason that the said suppliers have not paid VAT amount, which would disentitle the assessee to claim VAT credit and hence the assessee cannot effectively prove the genuineness of purchases. If the re-revised VAT returns have been accepted by the VAT authorities and the assessee got the credit of VAT amount

ACIT -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HIKAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

section (4) of section 10A section 10A, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of segregating the profits of the busin segregating the profits of the business into export profits and ess into export profits and domestic

ABOTT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shric.N.Prasad, Jm & Shrim.Balaganesh, Am

purchase orders are placed with the supplying AEs or the regional distribution center at Singapore. AHPL is responsible for clearing the healthcare products through customs and completing related formalities. As regards imports of reagents, AHPL does not hold large quantity of healthcare products as these products have short shelf life. The Shipments are received on weekly basis while 'the lead

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed that cost in respect of abortive/unsuccessful blocks are not to be reduced while computing the profits of undertaking namely, KGD which is eligible for deduction under section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021