DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases." 7.8.3. Since the facts in the instant case is identical to that of the assessee’s own case as mentioned above, we do not find any error in findings of the Ld.CIT(A), and M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. hence, we are inclined uphold findings of Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. Accordingly the ground No.13

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases." 7.8.3. Since the facts in the instant case is identical to that of the assessee’s own case as mentioned above, we do not find any error in findings of the Ld.CIT(A), and M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. hence, we are inclined uphold findings of Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. Accordingly the ground No.13

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases." 7.8.3. Since the facts in the instant case is identical to that of the assessee’s own case as mentioned above, we do not find any error in findings of the Ld.CIT(A), and M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. hence, we are inclined uphold findings of Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. Accordingly the ground No.13

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases." 7.8.3. Since the facts in the instant case is identical to that of the assessee’s own case as mentioned above, we do not find any error in findings of the Ld.CIT(A), and M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. hence, we are inclined uphold findings of Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. Accordingly the ground No.13

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases." 7.8.3. Since the facts in the instant case is identical to that of the assessee’s own case as mentioned above, we do not find any error in findings of the Ld.CIT(A), and M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. hence, we are inclined uphold findings of Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. Accordingly the ground No.13

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases." 7.8.3. Since the facts in the instant case is identical to that of the assessee’s own case as mentioned above, we do not find any error in findings of the Ld.CIT(A), and M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. hence, we are inclined uphold findings of Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. Accordingly the ground No.13

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating to the disallowance made

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

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

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

purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating to the disallowance made

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

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

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

purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating to the disallowance made

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating to the disallowance made

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly\nallowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the\nsellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before\nthem. We find that the order of the Tribunal is well a reasoned order\ntaking into account all the facts before concluding that the\npurchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found\nwith the order dated

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus. Referring to these observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case, had sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase price, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to him implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly disallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at Rs.139

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus. Referring to these observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case, had sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase price, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to him implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly disallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at Rs.139

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

bogus. Referring to\nthese observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case,\nhad sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase\nprice, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to\nhim implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly\ndisallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at\nRs.139

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are\npartly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus. Referring to\nthese observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case,\nhad sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase\nprice, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to\nhim implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly\ndisallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at\nRs.139