VARDHMAN REMEDIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), बनाम/ M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan H-405, Gokul Residency, Vs. M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.142/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1004/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., 13(3)(2), H-405, Gokul Residency, Aayakar Bhavan 6773/M/2016 & –Co.142/Mu/2017 Near Samta Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases of Rs.7,51,794/-. The ld. AR also submitted before us that the conclusion and findings of the FAA that the assessee has failed to maintain the books of account in accordance with the provisions of section 44AA were incorrect and contrary to the facts on records. In the present 6773/M/2016 and –CO.142/Mu/2017 case, we find that

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VARDHMAN REMEDIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), बनाम/ M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan H-405, Gokul Residency, Vs. M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.142/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1004/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., 13(3)(2), H-405, Gokul Residency, Aayakar Bhavan 6773/M/2016 & –Co.142/Mu/2017 Near Samta Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases of Rs.7,51,794/-. The ld. AR also submitted before us that the conclusion and findings of the FAA that the assessee has failed to maintain the books of account in accordance with the provisions of section 44AA were incorrect and contrary to the facts on records. In the present 6773/M/2016 and –CO.142/Mu/2017 case, we find that

VARDHMAN REMEDIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), बनाम/ M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan H-405, Gokul Residency, Vs. M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.142/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1004/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., 13(3)(2), H-405, Gokul Residency, Aayakar Bhavan 6773/M/2016 & –Co.142/Mu/2017 Near Samta Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases of Rs.7,51,794/-. The ld. AR also submitted before us that the conclusion and findings of the FAA that the assessee has failed to maintain the books of account in accordance with the provisions of section 44AA were incorrect and contrary to the facts on records. In the present 6773/M/2016 and –CO.142/Mu/2017 case, we find that

VARDHAMAN REMEDIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), बनाम/ M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan H-405, Gokul Residency, Vs. M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.142/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1004/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., 13(3)(2), H-405, Gokul Residency, Aayakar Bhavan 6773/M/2016 & –Co.142/Mu/2017 Near Samta Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases of Rs.7,51,794/-. The ld. AR also submitted before us that the conclusion and findings of the FAA that the assessee has failed to maintain the books of account in accordance with the provisions of section 44AA were incorrect and contrary to the facts on records. In the present 6773/M/2016 and –CO.142/Mu/2017 case, we find that

JIGNESH SURESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,1,, THANE

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

bogus purchases. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding under section 271B for failure to get account audited. 3. The AO subsequently issued a penalty notice under section 271B of the Act and issued show-cause notice dated 22.12.2017. In response, the assessee submitted that “With reference to your notice, regarding penalty proceedings u/s 271 B of the income

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

271A and under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

271A and under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

271A and under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

271A and under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

271A and under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2805 to 2810/MUM/2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 2805 से 2810 /मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2009-10 से 2011-12)

271A and under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in the respective assessment years. 2 ITA NO. 2805 TO 2810/MUM/2022(A.Y.2009-10 TO 2011-12) 2. Since, these appeals arise from identical set of facts all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. These appeals