PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

purchase the property. 8 ITA.NO. 943/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., 14. The unsold flats cannot be let out for the very reason being it forms part of business stock in trade and such stock is required to be in possession of the Appellant so that the property can be sold to the desired customers at any point

VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), 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 for the year under consideration. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed and grounds Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. Page 11 of 24 ITA NO. 1213 & 2164/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2020-21) Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd 9. With regard to Ground No. 4, which is in respect of disallowance

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 for the year under consideration. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed and grounds Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. Page 11 of 24 ITA NO. 1213 & 2164/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2020-21) Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd 9. With regard to Ground No. 4, which is in respect of disallowance

AUGMONT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanaugmont Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle-6(1)(2), 201, A/B & 202, 2Nd Floor, Trade Vs. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar World, D-Wing, Kamala Mills Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Compound, S. B. Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400 003. Pan: Aagcr3007D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

section, Availer of bogus ITC credit (CBIC Investigation)/Business purchase, Non compliance to income computation and disclosure and stock valuation. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued from time to time. However, in response to the notice, assessee submitted the relevant documents to substantiate the 80G

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)

purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating to the disallowance made

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)

purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating to the disallowance made

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)

purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating to the disallowance made

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)

purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating to the disallowance made

ELECTROLAB,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CIR 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Electrolab, Joint Commissioner Of 401, Tirupati Udyog, Income Tax, I.B. Patel Road, Vs. Circle 16(1), Goregaon (East), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Aaafe0062C (Appellant) (Respondent) Representation : Assessee By : Shri Anil J. Sathe, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B.S. Bist, D.R.

bogus purchases of Rs.34,59,518/-.( Ground No.1.1 to 1.6) 2) If Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 80G

ROYAL CHAINS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed\nand appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

bogus or that the transactions were not\ngenuine. In fact, no effort has been made by the AO to rebut the\nevidentiary value of these confirmations.\n(vii) No basis for invoking section 69A: The AO has made the addition\nsolely on the assumption that the stock was unaccounted, overlooking the\nreconciliatory evidence, confirmations, and audit trail. The appellant

DCIT CIRCLE-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SUNJEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

80G of the Act at Rs.14,39,000/-, thereby declaring total income of ITA No. 4720 & 5244/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Sunjewels Private Limited Rs.33,19,89,990/-. The ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.11.2016, determining total income at Rs. 36,23,93,420/- and Rs. 36,27,61,525/- u/s. 115JB

SUNJEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

80G of the Act at Rs.14,39,000/-, thereby declaring total income of ITA No. 4720 & 5244/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Sunjewels Private Limited Rs.33,19,89,990/-. The ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.11.2016, determining total income at Rs. 36,23,93,420/- and Rs. 36,27,61,525/- u/s. 115JB

SHANTILAL B. PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KALYAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

Section 147 of the 1961 Act. I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 4. The assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and made detailed submissions as also filed additional evidences before learned CIT(A). The remand report was called by Ld. CIT(A) from AO. The AO submitted in its remand report that the assessee has now submitted ledger extracts, invoices, delivery

SHANTILAL B PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

Section 147 of the 1961 Act. I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 4. The assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and made detailed submissions as also filed additional evidences before learned CIT(A). The remand report was called by Ld. CIT(A) from AO. The AO submitted in its remand report that the assessee has now submitted ledger extracts, invoices, delivery

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

purchase transactions of ₹. 1,92,65,507/- during the relevant year. The same were disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 25.03.2013. The assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit in respect of expenses incurred for land development against the Page

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

purchase transactions of ₹. 1,92,65,507/- during the relevant year. The same were disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 25.03.2013. The assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit in respect of expenses incurred for land development against the Page

TEXURE CONCEPT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am M/S Texture Concept Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M-6 Sundram, Sion Circle, Sion Vs. Circle 15(3) East Mumbai-400 022 Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadft1920F Assessee By .. Shri Mehul Shah, Ar .. Shri B.S. Bist, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing .. 05-04-2017 .. Date Of Pronouncement 05-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

bogus purchase. Accordingly, we direct the AO to disallow only 15% of gross profit and hence this issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 7. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the claim of deduction disallowed by AO under section 80G

ROLTA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3563/Mum/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2737/Mum/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Irp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant M/S. Rolta India Ltd. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus 18. purchases made from M/s. Salsons Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. 19. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance was made under wrong appreciation of facts as the assessee had made purchases only for Rs.7,22,178/- from M/s. Salsons Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant year, whereas addition was made to Rs.73

ROLTA INDIA LTD. THROUGH DR. MAMTA BINANI, RP. ,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3563/Mum/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2737/Mum/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Irp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant M/S. Rolta India Ltd. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus 18. purchases made from M/s. Salsons Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. 19. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance was made under wrong appreciation of facts as the assessee had made purchases only for Rs.7,22,178/- from M/s. Salsons Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant year, whereas addition was made to Rs.73