DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 17

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 17

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 17

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 17

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 17

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 17

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI , PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE

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

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

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

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , MUMBAI

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

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

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

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

ITO, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKA TECHINFRA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed on merits, whereas the CO filed by the Assessee stand dismissed being not pressed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

69,921/- appears to be fair and reasonable. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee has candidly admitted that addition @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases made by the AO may be upheld…..” 6.8 The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of JK Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1850 of 2017 order dated 28 October, 2021, upheld

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

69. 016. The learned authorized representative referred to the order passed by the learned CIT – A and submitted that the one-to-one mapping of purchases are shown at page number 123 – 124 of the paper book he submitted that the purchases from RA distributors private limited and also purchases from Nayan exempt private limited, read the exempt private limited

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 24,92,650 1,08,17,902 29,39,917 69,98,521 - purchases 7. Disallowance of 67,41,600 66,18,000 69,48,900 69,48,900 - professional fees paid 8. Disallowance of sales 12,74,70,526 14,42,93,377 21,00,46,026 24,42,74,056 24,62,91,946 promotion expenses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Bogus purchases becomes irrelevant consideration as it neither relevant fact, facts in issue nor issue in dispute as per Evidence Act. CIT(A) adjudicated upon the dispute which was not contested by assessee or Revenue. 2. As per the Scheme of Income Tax Act in general and sections 37, 69