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)

144C(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17, all the assessment orders were passed on 23/01/2019. 2. Considering the appeal record we find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a combined order related to A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesseeonly related to A.Ys

ATOMSTROYEXPORT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)CIRCLE -1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') for the AY 2020-21. The assessee raised the following grounds: “Taxability of payment received under Offshore Supply Contracts 1) The learned DCIT/DRP erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 3267,27,22,775 received by the appellant company from the Offshore Supply Contracts was taxable

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

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

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

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

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

144C(13), depreciation was disallowed on certain unverified purchases and expenses which were capitalized in the books of accounts. The AO called on the assessee to furnish the depreciation on the written down value of the disallowed purchases for the year under consideration and accordingly disallowed the depreciation on said unverified purchases for the AY 2013-14 also

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

144C(13), depreciation was disallowed on certain unverified purchases and expenses which were capitalized in the books of accounts. The AO called on the assessee to furnish the depreciation on the written down value of the disallowed purchases for the year under consideration and accordingly disallowed the depreciation on said unverified purchases for the AY 2013-14 also

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.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

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.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC-46, MUMBAI

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

bogus purchases.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

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.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

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.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

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.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

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.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

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.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

BRIDGE INDIA FUND,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 457/M/2023 for assessment year 2014 – 15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

bogus purchase of share is chargeable to tax under section 69 of The Income Tax Act. Further sum of ₹ 4,711,806 is an alleged commission paid at the rate of 3% on obtaining the total purchase transaction of the above company chargeable to tax under section 69C of the act. Accordingly the draft assessment order was passed

BRIDGE INDIA FUND,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 457/M/2023 for assessment year 2014 – 15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

bogus purchase of share is chargeable to tax under section 69 of The Income Tax Act. Further sum of ₹ 4,711,806 is an alleged commission paid at the rate of 3% on obtaining the total purchase transaction of the above company chargeable to tax under section 69C of the act. Accordingly the draft assessment order was passed

IMPERIAL MARK TRADE (I) P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(1) of the Act disallowed loss on high seas sales of Rs. 8,82,90,741 on the basis that the same is bogus as the assessee has Imperial Mark Trade (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.1453/Mum./2017 purchased the crude oil on high seas at a higher price and sold the same to the sister concern

ARVIND VELJI GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

bogus long term capital gain’ by way of purchase and sale of penny stock sale of penny stocks of scrip namely scrip namely ‘Ojas Asset Re-construction Company Ltd construction Company Ltd’., the Assessing Officer recorded he Assessing Officer recorded Arvind Velji Gada ITA No. 1582 reasons reasons reasons to to to believe believe believe that that that income income