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

5 of 24 ITA NO. 1213 & 2164/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2020-21) Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd case for earlier years, he restricted the disallowance to the extent of 6% of the bogus purchases. 3. In this regard, it is submitted that the impugned purchases of raw material are genuine which are duly supported by evidences. Further, the statement recorded during the search

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

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 certification which were found in order and the assessment was completed

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

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

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

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

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

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved u/s.80G and all the requisite documentary

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved u/s.80G and all the requisite documentary

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved u/s.80G and all the requisite documentary

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved u/s.80G and all the requisite documentary

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved u/s.80G and all the requisite documentary

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved u/s.80G and all the requisite documentary

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved u/s.80G and all the requisite documentary

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved u/s.80G and all the requisite documentary

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved u/s.80G and all the requisite documentary

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

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

80G. There is no embargo in claiming\nsuch expenditure as a deduction under Chapter VI-A, including section\n80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied.\nContention of the ld. DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely\nbecause they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The\nchoice of recipient of such CSR donations is always with