DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

bogus or sham Accordingly, it was held that there is no merit in imputing interest thereon by way of transfer pricing adjustment. Since the transfer pricing adjustment made in this year is a continuation of earlier year’s action of TPO and since the earlier year’s T P adjustment has been deleted by the Tribunal, following the said decision

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

bogus or sham Accordingly, it was held that there is no merit in imputing interest thereon by way of transfer pricing adjustment. Since the transfer pricing adjustment made in this year is a continuation of earlier year’s action of TPO and since the earlier year’s T P adjustment has been deleted by the Tribunal, following the said decision

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

bogus or sham Accordingly, it was held that there is no merit in imputing interest thereon by way of transfer pricing adjustment. Since the transfer pricing adjustment made in this year is a continuation of earlier year’s action of TPO and since the earlier year’s T P adjustment has been deleted by the Tribunal, following the said decision

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

bogus or sham Accordingly, it was held that there is no merit in imputing interest thereon by way of transfer pricing adjustment. Since the transfer pricing adjustment made in this year is a continuation of earlier year’s action of TPO and since the earlier year’s T P adjustment has been deleted by the Tribunal, following the said decision

ACIT CIR 28(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SUBHASH V. KANEKAR, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The 3 Subhash V Kanekar CIT(A) also allowed partial relief to the addition made by the AO towards bogus purchases u/s 69C by directing the AO to estimate net profit of 15% on bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee as well as the revenue are in appeal before

CREATIVE GARMENTS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 18(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

1,78,00,000/- on account of bogus purchases. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ClT{A} ought not to have upheld the impugned disallowance in as much as there are no bogus purchases made by the appellants and the Assessing Officer has not brought any material

MANGALMURTI REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5 PANVEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3787/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mangalmurti Realtors बिधम/ Ito-Ward-5, Panvel 610, Piramal Chambers, Shop No.10, Plot No.1 & 10, Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Sector-31, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai. Ita. No. 4400/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito-Ward-5, Panvel बिधम/ M/S. Mangalmurti Realtors 610, Piramal Chambers, Shop No.10, Plot No.1 & 10, Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Sector-31, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfm3709F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rishabh Mehta (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Padamapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. Ita. No.3787/M/17 4400/M/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

bogus purchases of Rs.5,54,863/- in relation to AY 2011-12. ITA. No.3787/M/17 4400/M/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 (c) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and low in not appreciating that the appellant had duly discharged its onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and utilisation thereof in the business of the appellant and accordingly

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

bogus entry operators and the assessee being one such beneficiary. It was held that whether assessee is a beneficiary or not is not to be finally adjudicated at the stage of reopening. Reopening was held to be valid. Distinction between validity of an addition and validity of reasons to believe was explained in the case of Pr CIT v Laxmiraj

NITAN CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

bogus entry operators and the assessee being one such beneficiary. It was held that whether assessee is a beneficiary or not is not to be finally adjudicated at the stage of reopening. Reopening was held to be valid. Distinction between validity of an addition and validity of reasons to believe was explained in the case of Pr CIT v Laxmiraj

DCIT 10(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. KARAMTARA ENGINEERING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-10(1)(2) M/S Karamtara Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 705, Morya Land Mark-Ii Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabck1921E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Karamtara Dcit (Osd)-8(2) Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd 705, Morya Land Mark-Ii Floor Room No. 204, M.K. New Link Road, Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabck1921E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Assessee By : Ms. M.K. Patel & Mr. R.S. Chokshi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2017

bogus purchases at 14.81% comprising of 10.81% of the gross profit ratio of the assessee-company for the year and 4% of the VAT claimed on such purchases. He also confirmed the addition of Rs.6,29,215/- as unexplained expenditure for purchases made during the year under consideration u/s 69C. Further the Ld. CIT(A) made an addition of Rs.31

VOLTAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 50C do not provide allowances for the circumstances under which the property was transacted. This does not appear to be a factually correct statement. In case of a dispute between the sale consideration and the value determined for stamp duty purposes, the AO is mandated to refer the transaction to Valuation Officer who is competent to go into such

VOLTAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 50C do not provide allowances for the circumstances under which the property was transacted. This does not appear to be a factually correct statement. In case of a dispute between the sale consideration and the value determined for stamp duty purposes, the AO is mandated to refer the transaction to Valuation Officer who is competent to go into such

ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARYSTA LIFESCIENCE INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.401/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Arysta Lifescience India Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income [Formerly Known As Devidayal (Sales) Ltd.] Tax Range-6(2) बनाम/ [Cin U51420Mh1949Plc007856] Rom No.563, 5Th Floor Vs. 123-124,12Th Floor, Mittal Chambers Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacd-0557-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.559/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Arysta Lifescience India Limited [Formerly Known As Devidayal (Sales) Ltd.] Tax -3(1)(1) बनाम/ [Cin U51420Mh1949Plc007856] Rom No.607, 6Th Floor Vs. 123-124,12Th Floor, Mittal Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacd-0557-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Section 50C were not applicable to these transactions, we remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for appreciation of aforesaid facts and re- adjudicate in the light of submissions made by Ld. AR. The assessee, in Assessment Year-2011-12 turn, is directed to supply the requisite documentary evidences and explanation to substantiate the same. Consequently, this

NAGJI KESHAVJI RITA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

50C. Apparently, the property was not registered in the name of the assessee, in which case the rights were required to be taxed as Short Term Capital Gains. Neither of these issues has been examined by the AO. 23 NagjiKeshavji Rita ITA 612/Mum/2022 1.5 As per capital Account, Short Term Capital Gain has been shown for sale of land

AADI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT -14, MUMBAI

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

bogus purchases were issued by the assessee in reality assessee has only sold. In this regard, Ld.DR submitted that Ld. Pr.CIT has only given a direction. Therefore, there is no prejudicial caused to the assessee since the issue is only direction were given to make a proper verification. 20. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, Ld.AR

DCIT 14.1.1, MUMBAI vs. AADI INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) R.W.S263 U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

bogus purchases were issued by the assessee in reality assessee has only sold. In this regard, Ld. DR submitted that Ld. Pr.CIT has only given a direction. Therefore, there is no prejudicial caused to the assessee since the issue is only direction were given to make a proper verification. 20. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, Ld.AR

TARADEVI N. KAUNGO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 18(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

bogus purchases as his income for the assessment year 2010-2011. Hence the A.O. made disallowance of Rs.65,983. Thereafter invoking the provisions of section 50C, the A.O. added a sum of Rs.42,51,024 as long term capital gain. 6. Upon assessee’s appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. Against this order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DELUXE RECYCLING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

1, the permissible variation was 5o und not 10% he decision of Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable. 2.1 Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: i. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in assessing the income at Rs 65,35,037/- instead of Rs 15,83,900/- as represented by the assessee. ii. The Learned CIT Appeals erred