DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. CLARIANT CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3902/Mum/2013 (यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Clariant Chemicals (India) Ltd, बनाम/ Addl. Commissioner Of Income P O Sandoz Baug, Tax, Range 1(1), Vs. Kolshet Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Thane -400607 M K Road, Mumbai. (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases. He ought not to have done so. In doing so, the learned CIT(A) has erred in doubting the genuineness of purchases without looking into the evidences of the transaction submitted. He ought not to have done so. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue are as under : “On the facts and in circumstances of the case

CLARIANT CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD,THANE vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3902/Mum/2013 (यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Clariant Chemicals (India) Ltd, बनाम/ Addl. Commissioner Of Income P O Sandoz Baug, Tax, Range 1(1), Vs. Kolshet Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Thane -400607 M K Road, Mumbai. (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases. He ought not to have done so. In doing so, the learned CIT(A) has erred in doubting the genuineness of purchases without looking into the evidences of the transaction submitted. He ought not to have done so. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue are as under : “On the facts and in circumstances of the case

GIRIRAJ KISHAN SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

80D of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A,O, erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,13,827/- being 100% of the purchases made from M/s Pragati Enterprises by treating genuine purchases as non genuine purchases/unexplained expenditure.” 3. In this case the Assessing Officer made 100% addition

SATISH RAJAJI RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

bogus purchases without appreciating the facts that the transaction of Rs. 3,36,65,779/- from party is genuine purchases, and the payments was made through banking channel and the quantity details of the purchase are matching with the sales. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the addition

KRISHIRAJ TRADING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the revenue ‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6524/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income B/9 Th Floor, Trade World, Tax Circle-6(2) बिधम/ Kamala Mill Compd., S.B. Marg, R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6840/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) A.C.I.T. Circle-6(2) M/S. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, B/9 Trade World, Kamala Mill बिधम/ M.K. Road, Compd., S.B. Marg, Lower Churchgate, Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400013. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaack2257N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

section 14A Rule 8D which were applicable from AY 2008-09 as has been held by the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd and the assessee had itself stated that there were no direct expenses were incurred by the assessee and therefore the expenses relating to earning of exempt income which did not form