DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

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

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. SALEM STEEL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

bogus purchases and freight payments made in relation thereto should have been disallowed or the assessee should have been held to be eligible for grant of deduction of a reasonable amount of purchase price of the oil cakes in question in view of the fact that receipts of the materials in question by the assessee were supported by various registers

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

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2) Amount of deduction restricted to 20% of Eligible 43,41,10,331 Profits 27. The AO disallowed the said claim on the ground that the assessee has not maintained separate set of books in respect of the eligible business and the manner in which the eligible profits was computed i.e. using turnover as allocation key is against the provisions

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2) Amount of deduction restricted to 20% of Eligible 43,41,10,331 Profits 27. The AO disallowed the said claim on the ground that the assessee has not maintained separate set of books in respect of the eligible business and the manner in which the eligible profits was computed i.e. using turnover as allocation key is against the provisions

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)

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR thus submitted that there was no provision in law, which empowered the AO to undertake comparison of different prices paid for purchases made from different unrelated independent parties. He thus contended that this entire exercise undertaken by the AO was irrelevant. The Ld. AR explained that the difference in rates amongst

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

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

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

bogus purchase merely based on the observation of learned TPO in relation to the dates of purchases, ignoring the submissions and following documentary evidences produced by the Appellant in support of the genuineness of the SDT: a) Copies of tax invoices of buyer (appellant) as well as the seller i.e. Stride Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. b) Copy of acknowledged intimations

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

2% of the unexplained credits in\nthe bank account.\"\n5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact\nthat the assessee failed to furnish any explanation on the\ncredits in the bank account of HDFC and DCB banks during\nthe assessment proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

2% of the unexplained credits in\nthe bank account.\"\n5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact\nthat the assessee failed to furnish any explanation on the\ncredits in the bank account of HDFC and DCB banks during\nthe assessment proceedings

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR thus \nsubmitted that there was no provision in law, which empowered the \nAO to undertake comparison of different prices paid for purchases \nmade from different unrelated independent parties. He thus contended \nthat this entire exercise undertaken by the AO was irrelevant. The Ld. \nAR explained that the difference in rates amongst

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR thus\nsubmitted that there was no provision in law, which empowered the\nAO to undertake comparison of different prices paid for purchases\nmade from different unrelated independent parties. He thus contended\nthat this entire exercise undertaken by the AO was irrelevant. The Ld.\nAR explained that the difference in rates amongst

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR thus\nsubmitted that there was no provision in law, which empowered the\nAO to undertake comparison of different prices paid for purchases\nmade from different unrelated independent parties. He thus contended\nthat this entire exercise undertaken by the AO was irrelevant. The Ld.\nAR explained that the difference in rates amongst

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR thus\nsubmitted that there was no provision in law, which empowered the\nAO to undertake comparison of different prices paid for purchases\nmade from different unrelated independent parties. He thus contended\nthat this entire exercise undertaken by the AO was irrelevant. The Ld.\nAR explained that the difference in rates amongst

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR thus\nsubmitted that there was no provision in law, which empowered the\nAO to undertake comparison of different prices paid for purchases\nmade from different unrelated independent parties. He thus contended\nthat this entire exercise undertaken by the AO was irrelevant. The Ld.\nAR explained that the difference in rates amongst