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

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), 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

ACIT-15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURYA FERROUS ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus expenses to deflate the profit thereby the profit thereby evading income tax. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cause and in law the order of Ld.CIT(A) is not bad in law in not realizing that the gods purchased by the assessee in cash through grey market invokes provisions of section 40A(3), hence the assessee

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

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

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

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

B. Metel Corporation.\n2008-09\n649032/-\nM/s. Sangura Trading P. Ltd.\n2008-09\n25451306/-\nM/s. Sairam Trading\nCorporation\n2008-09\n9020206/-\nM/s. Mahavir Enterprises\n37538548/-\nTotal\n172295332/-\n9.1 The assessee failed to file copy of the bills, transportation\ndetails, and stock register etc, therefore, the Assessing Officer\nissued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the parties. However

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

B. Metel Corporation.\n2008-09\n649032/-\nM/s. Sangura Trading P. Ltd.\n2008-09\n25451306/-\nM/s. Sairam Trading\nCorporation\n2008-09\n9020206/-\nM/s. Mahavir Enterprises\n2008-09\n37538548/-\nTotal\n172295332/-\n9.1 The assessee failed to file copy of the bills, transportation\ndetails, and stock register etc, therefore, the Assessing Officer\nissued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the parties

DCIT CC -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus circular purchase and sale transactions obtained for rasing turnover for availing bank credit. The Assessing Officer has given detailed finding in para 5.1 of the impugned assessment order, wherein he has stated that assessee and other entities of the group including M/s Hazel Metals, M/s Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Veritas (India) Ltd carried out circular trading with

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

bogus\ncircular purchase and sale transactions obtained for rasing\nturnover for availing bank credit. The Assessing Officer has given\ndetailed finding in para 5.1 of the impugned assessment order,\nwherein he has stated that assessee and other entities of the group\nincluding M/s Hazel Metals, M/s Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. and\nM/s Veritas (India) Ltd carried out circular trading with

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas\nappeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus\ncircular purchase and sale transactions obtained for rasing\nturnover for availing bank credit. The Assessing Officer has given\ndetailed finding in para 5.1 of the impugned assessment order,\nwherein he has stated that assessee and other entities of the group\nincluding M/s Hazel Metals, M/s Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. and\nM/s Veritas (India) Ltd carried out circular trading with

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas\nappeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus\ncircular purchase and sale transactions obtained for rasing\nturnover for availing bank credit. The Assessing Officer has given\ndetailed finding in para 5.1 of the impugned assessment order,\nwherein he has stated that assessee and other entities of the group\nincluding M/s Hazel Metals, M/s Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. and\nM/s Veritas (India) Ltd carried out circular trading with

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus\ncircular purchase and sale transactions obtained for rasing\nturnover for availing bank credit. The Assessing Officer has given\ndetailed finding in para 5.1 of the impugned assessment order,\nwherein he has stated that assessee and other entities of the group\nincluding M/s Hazel Metals, M/s Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. and\nM/s Veritas (India) Ltd carried out circular trading with

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas\nappeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus\ncircular purchase and sale transactions obtained for rasing\nturnover for availing bank credit. The Assessing Officer has given\ndetailed finding in para 5.1 of the impugned assessment order,\nwherein he has stated that assessee and other entities of the group\nincluding M/s Hazel Metals, M/s Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. and\nM/s Veritas (India) Ltd carried out circular trading with

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

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