BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

201-02 (SC) examining the power of court to 02 (SC) examining the power of court to investigate the belief of the AO has held as under: investigate the belief of the AO has held as under:- "All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section "All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section "All that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. J D ELECTRIC WORKS, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. On further appeal On further appeal, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, , the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

201/– to all the 4 parties. M/s Asian Star Company Ltd; A.Y.2012-13 011. Accordingly the assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the act was passed on 30/12/2019 making the addition of ₹ 116,624,231 with respect to the purchase transaction and disallowance of commission expenditure of ₹ 8,315,211, determining the total income

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is upheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by the assessee. 16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

bogus long-term capital gains and share capital etc. According to the Revenue, ACIAL was being managed and controlled by Shri Shah and thus in light of his statement given in the course of his search, the & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd professional fees paid to ACIAL was treated

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

Section 37(1) of the Act was unjustified.\n68\nITA No.879 to 883/M/2021\n& Others (Assessee & Revenue)\nA.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15\nIPCA Laboratories Ltd\nThus, the entire disallowance is held to be unsustainable and is\ndirected to be deleted.\n11.13 Now coming to AY 2010-11, as noted above, the CBDT\nCircular No. 5/2012 read with

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies\nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these\ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the\ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal

DY.CIT CC -5(2) CENT. RG. -5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies\nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these\ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the\ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal

DCIT- CC5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies \nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these \ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the \ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies\nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these\ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the\ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Section 37(1)\nof the Act. On facts, qua each of the sub-head of sales & promotion\nexpenses, the AO is noted to have examined the same and made\ndisallowance in the following manner, which is noted to be\nindependent and different from the amounts admitted to be\ndisallowable by Mr. Beli.\nNature of Expenses Quantum Disallowed\n- Expenses

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Section 37(1)\nof the Act. On facts, qua each of the sub-head of sales & promotion\nexpenses, the AO is noted to have examined the same and made\ndisallowance in the following manner, which is noted to be\nindependent and different from the amounts admitted to be\ndisallowable by Mr. Beli.\nNature of Expenses\nQuantum Disallowed\n- Expenses

DCIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

Section 37(1) \nof the Act. On facts, qua each of the sub-head of sales & promotion \nexpenses, the AO is noted to have examined the same and made \ndisallowance in the following manner, which is noted to be \nindependent and different from the amounts admitted to be \ndisallowable by Mr. Beli.\nNature of Expenses\nQuantum Disallowed\n- Expenses

ITO-22 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. NILESH CHANDRAKANT VORA, MUMBAI

201 4 Airfig Sales Reply not received 12,97,946 Total 33,40,164 5. The Assessee was asked to show cause why purchases made from the abovesaid parties should not be treated as bogus purchases. Vide replies filed by the Assessee vide letter, dated 18/08/2014, 3 26/08/2014 and 12/09/2014, the Assessee furnished: a) Party-wise details of Purchases

DCIT-421, MUMBAI vs. LUKESH TEXTILE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarluvkesh Textile Industries Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax Circle 201, Maxheal House, Swami 4(2)(1) Vs. Ayyappa Mandir Marg, Bangur Aayakar Bhavan, Nagar, Goregaon West, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400104 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Lukesh Textile Industries Income Tax Circle Private Limited 4(2)(1) Vs. 21/22 A Chunawal Ind Estate, 640 Aayakar Bhavan, Condivita Lane, Andheri East, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri A. L. Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeals Have Been Preferred By Both The Assessee & The Revenue Which Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] With Regard To The Assessment Order Passed Under Luvkesh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 22.03.2024 A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

201, Maxheal House, Swami 4(2)(1) Vs. Ayyappa Mandir Marg, Bangur Aayakar Bhavan, Nagar, Goregaon West, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400104 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACL7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner of Lukesh Textile Industries Income Tax Circle Private Limited 4(2)(1) Vs. 21/22 A Chunawal Ind Estate, 640 Aayakar Bhavan, Condivita Lane, Andheri East, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai

LUVKESH TEXTILE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarluvkesh Textile Industries Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax Circle 201, Maxheal House, Swami 4(2)(1) Vs. Ayyappa Mandir Marg, Bangur Aayakar Bhavan, Nagar, Goregaon West, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400104 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Lukesh Textile Industries Income Tax Circle Private Limited 4(2)(1) Vs. 21/22 A Chunawal Ind Estate, 640 Aayakar Bhavan, Condivita Lane, Andheri East, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri A. L. Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeals Have Been Preferred By Both The Assessee & The Revenue Which Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] With Regard To The Assessment Order Passed Under Luvkesh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 22.03.2024 A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

201, Maxheal House, Swami 4(2)(1) Vs. Ayyappa Mandir Marg, Bangur Aayakar Bhavan, Nagar, Goregaon West, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400104 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACL7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner of Lukesh Textile Industries Income Tax Circle Private Limited 4(2)(1) Vs. 21/22 A Chunawal Ind Estate, 640 Aayakar Bhavan, Condivita Lane, Andheri East, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai