JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

purchase and sale of shares with an obligation of payments and delivery to certain times the client does not accept the loss and therefore, assessee has to bear it by reversal of the trade. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the same holding that the provisions of Section 73 of the Act hit it and loss is speculative. The learned

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

purchase and sale of shares with an obligation of payments and delivery to certain times the client does not accept the loss and therefore, assessee has to bear it by reversal of the trade. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the same holding that the provisions of Section 73 of the Act hit it and loss is speculative. The learned

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

transfer pricing exercise in relation to international or specified domestic transactions with associated enterprises. Similarly, according to him, only if the purchases from related parties are found to be inflated then the excess & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd portion was disallowable

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, 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 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

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

transfer\nof funds to RTGS immediately after the deposit of money has not been\nfurther elaborated. The AO has not cited a single instance that the\npresent share application money of Rs. 11,85,74,000/- have come to\nthe appellant through cash deposit in the bank account of M/s.\nDhanteras Agency Pvt. Ltd. He has given a general statement

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." 5.11 We notice that the AO himself has observed at paragraph 17 of the assessment order that the purchases have been made from open market against the bills obtained from entry providers. We also notice that the assessee has furnished all the relevant documents to prove the purchases, which are narrated in point (a) in the preceding paragraph

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." 5.11 We notice that the AO himself has observed at paragraph 17 of the assessment order that the purchases have been made from open market against the bills obtained from entry providers. We also notice that the assessee has furnished all the relevant documents to prove the purchases, which are narrated in point (a) in the preceding paragraph

DY.CIT CC -5(2) CENT. RG. -5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

price and got back monies/cash from\nsuppliers, according to us, merely because there were rates differential\namongst purchases from different vendors cannot be sole reason to\ninfer over-invoicing/inflation of purchases. We also note that the AO\nhimself had ultimately not given any relevance to the enquiry and\ncomparison made by him, which although was extensively discussed

DCIT- CC5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

price and got back monies/cash from \nsuppliers, according to us, merely because there were rates differential \namongst purchases from different vendors cannot be sole reason to \ninfer over-invoicing/inflation of purchases. We also note that the AO \nhimself had ultimately not given any relevance to the enquiry and \ncomparison made by him, which although was extensively discussed

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustments towards goods sold to AEs and interest\nrecoverable from AEs made by the TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, which\nwas added by the AO in the original assessments for AYs 2009-10 and\n2010-11;\nb) disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IC of the Act to the extent of\nincome derived from the sale

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustments towards goods sold to AEs and interest\nrecoverable from AEs made by the TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, which\nwas added by the AO in the original assessments for AYs 2009-10 and\n2010-11;\nb) disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IC of the Act to the extent of\nincome derived from the sale

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustments towards goods sold to AEs and interest\nrecoverable from AEs made by the TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, which\nwas added by the AO in the original assessments for AYs 2009-10 and\n2010-11;\nb) disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IC of the Act to the extent of\nincome derived from the sale

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

price and got back monies/cash from\nsuppliers, according to us, merely because there were rates differential\namongst purchases from different vendors cannot be sole reason to\ninfer over-invoicing/inflation of purchases. We also note that the AO\nhimself had ultimately not given any relevance to the enquiry and\ncomparison made by him, which although was extensively discussed

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

price and got back monies/cash from\nsuppliers, according to us, merely because there were rates differential\namongst purchases from different vendors cannot be sole reason to\ninfer over-invoicing/inflation of purchases. We also note that the AO\nhimself had ultimately not given any relevance to the enquiry and\ncomparison made by him, which although was extensively discussed

DCIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustments towards goods sold to AEs and interest \nrecoverable from AEs made by the TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, which \nwas added by the AO in the original assessments for AYs 2009-10 and \n2010-11;\nb) disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IC of the Act to the extent of \nincome derived from the sale