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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI , PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase from which are considered as bogus in the assessment order. All these par order. All these parties submitted their reply along with supporting ties submitted their reply along with supporting documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified by the AO and found in order. documents. These were also verified

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)

depreciation claimed thereon. It is therefore a case where the purchases were indeed made, but the parties, who the assessee claims to have supplied these purchases, are not genuine. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bholanath Polyfab (P.) Ltd. (355 ITR 290) wherein