DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

6 M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 found in documentary evidence found in documentary evidence filed , no disallowance was called , no disallowance was called for. 6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

6 M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 found in documentary evidence found in documentary evidence filed , no disallowance was called , no disallowance was called for. 6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission

DCIT 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BUSINESS MATCH SERVICES (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of Rs.4,87,52,408/- u/s14A. 5.The appellant prays that for these and other reasons it is submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. 2 M/s. Businessmatch Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend add, amend or alter

DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. FERN INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD, MUMBAI

section 133 (6) and summons u/s. 131(1) were issued to 19 parties, in some cases the notices issued were returned back by the postal department and in some cases notices were served but no reply was received. The A.O. asked the aR of the assessee to produce those parties. Furhter, the AR of the assessee was also asked

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the relief given by the CIT(A) towards bogus purchases. 4. The brief facts pertaining to the issue under consideration – The AO during the course of assessment proceeding issued notice under section 133(6

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance by issuing notice under section 133(6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance by issuing notice under section 133(6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance by issuing notice under section 133(6) on sample basis amounting to circa 40% of the total expenditure claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6) of the Act were sent to Mohd Salim Khan (Star Scrap Steel), Mashhor Alam Sabir Khan (S K Scrap Trading), and Shafik Ahmed Mumtaz Khan (SK Steel Traders) and that the Assessing Officer had proceeded to disallow

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6) of the Act were sent to Mohd Salim Khan (Star Scrap Steel), Mashhor Alam Sabir Khan (S K Scrap Trading), and Shafik Ahmed Mumtaz Khan (SK Steel Traders) and that the Assessing Officer had proceeded to disallow

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallow un-reconciled amount merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further observed that the AO during assessment proceedings has made no efforts to investigate and issue notices under section 133(6

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallow un-reconciled amount merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further observed that the AO during assessment proceedings has made no efforts to investigate and issue notices under section 133(6

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallow un-reconciled amount merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further observed that the AO during assessment proceedings has made no efforts to investigate and issue notices under section 133(6

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallow un-reconciled amount merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further observed that the AO during assessment proceedings has made no efforts to investigate and issue notices under section 133(6

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallow un-reconciled amount merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further observed that the AO during assessment proceedings has made no efforts to investigate and issue notices under section 133(6

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallow un-reconciled amount merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further observed that the AO during assessment proceedings has made no efforts to investigate and issue notices under section 133(6

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SYSTEMATIX HOLDINGS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit-2(3)(1), M/S Systematix Holding R.No. 552, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, J K Somani Bldg. Mumbai-400020. British Hotel Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaics 4642 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Kabra Revenue By : Dr. Koshor Dule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

disallowed the long term capital loss amounting to Rs.11,87,26,561/- determining total income at Rs.5,29,73,730/ determining total income at Rs.5,29,73,730/-. determining total income at Rs.5,29,73,730/ M/s Systematix Holding 3 M/s Systematix Holding ITA No. No. 470/M/2023 Officer on the basis of the 4.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Subsequently, the Assessing

HITESH UGAMRAJ MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24

133(6), confirming the transactions. They are independent tax-paying entities who file returns under Section paying entities who file returns under Section paying entities who file returns under Section 44AD. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted that the immediate withdrawal 44AD. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted that the immediate withdrawal 44AD. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted that