VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12

144C(5) vide order dated 23.12.15. In various grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised following issues: i) Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.46,94,26,016/- in respect of ‘Guarantee Commission’ and ‘Fee for Letter of Undertaking’ (Ground No.1.1 to 1.4). ii) Disallowance of sum of Rs.110,33,96,481/- made under section 14A read with rule 8D (Ground No.2.1

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

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

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

8. Since, similar issue has already been decided in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment year, therefore, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, in absence of any allegation of change in facts and law. Accordingly, findings of the learned CIT(A) are upheld in this regards

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

8. Since, similar issue has already been decided in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment year, therefore, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, in absence of any allegation of change in facts and law. Accordingly, findings of the learned CIT(A) are upheld in this regards

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

LINTAS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

bogus or the purchases were found to be nongenuine. There may be many reasons that notices u/s 133 (6) remained unserved or not responded to. But, merely that fact, cannot result into disallowance. Further, it is not the case of the assessee that they have not deducted tax at source on payment made to most of the parties. To support

LINTAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI , DELHI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

bogus or the purchases were found to be nongenuine. There may be many reasons that notices u/s 133 (6) remained unserved or not responded to. But, merely that fact, cannot result into disallowance. Further, it is not the case of the assessee that they have not deducted tax at source on payment made to most of the parties. To support

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

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 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

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

8. During the assessment proceedings pertaining to AY 2006-07 to AY 2011- 12 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s.153A and for AY 2012-13 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 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

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

8. During the assessment proceedings pertaining to AY 2006-07 to AY 2011- 12 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s.153A and for AY 2012-13 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 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