M/S. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT . CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

method. It is stated that the Transfer pricing officer has accepted the T.P study, meaning thereby, the TPO has accepted the gross profit margin of the assessee to be at par or more than the industry average. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee

DCIT C.C. 3(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

method. It is stated that the Transfer pricing officer has accepted the T.P study, meaning thereby, the TPO has accepted the gross profit margin of the assessee to be at par or more than the industry average. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

bogus purchases and has never retracted such admission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the impugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has not been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases and has never retracted such admission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the impugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has not been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

bogus purchases and has never retracted such\nadmission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings,\nthe assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the\nimpugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has\nnot been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

ACIT-18(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. JEWELLERS NARANDAS & SONS, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we allow ground no. 1 raised by the assessee in CO. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the assessment order, we notice that Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is only on merit, t...

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1226/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit-18(1), M/S Jewellers Narandas & Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Earnest House, Nariman Street, Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafj2885J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 59/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S Jewellers Narandas & Acit-18(1), Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Earnest House, Nariman Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Point, Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar G. Subrahmanyam, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri K. Shivaraman, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement

TP 12 I.T.A. No. 1226/Mum/2018 & CO 59/Mum/2019 M/s Jewellers Narandas & Sons wing is consistently in the region of around 1.75% to 3%. In view of the same, considering the profit margin in this sector i.e. around 2 to 3 percent and the taxes saved around 1%, I am of the considered opinion that if the addition is sustained

M/S. FDC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT- 8 (1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6901/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6840/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Fdc Limited Acit Circle– 8(1) बिाम/ 142-48, S. V. Road {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} Jogeshwari (West) R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7016/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Circle– 8(1) M/S Fdc Limited बिाम/ {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} 142-48, S. V. Road R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Jogeshwari (West) Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 102 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

TP adjustment on account of products sold by the assessee to AE 7. & 8. Weighted Deduction u/s 35(2AB) towards development of E-Coli Clone 9. to 13. Deduction u/s 35(2AB) for Roha & Goa Unit-III R & D Units 14. to 16. Disallowance of Publicity Expenses 17. & 17.1 Addition on account of alleged bogus purchases 18. & 19. Allocation

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

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

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

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

DCIT C.C. 3(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

method. It is stated that the Transfer pricing officer has accepted the T.P study, meaning thereby, the TPO has accepted the gross profit margin of the assessee to be at par or more than the industry average. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee

M/S. VIRAJ PROFILES PVT. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VIRAJ PROFILES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR 3(2) , MUMBAI

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

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

method. It is stated that the Transfer pricing officer has accepted the T.P study, meaning thereby, the TPO has accepted the gross profit margin of the assessee to be at par or more than the industry average. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC-46, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases.” 14. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the refund of Sales Tax of Rs. 89,40,89,905/- as Capital Receipt, directing the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and to consider the income on sale of Certified Emission Reductions