TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailing the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'E' Bench, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for short) in I.T.A.Nos.5768/Mum/2013 and 5304/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. The appeal has been preferred projecting the following questions as substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner in restricting the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act to Rs. 10,00,000.00 giving relief of Rs. 2,38,71,710.00 without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was worked out as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read with Section 14A of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or hearing by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2017 in Income Tax Appeal No.1195 of 2015 in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 2009-10. However, Mr. Kaka has pointed out that because of the low tax effect being below the prescribed limit under the relevant CBDT Circular, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Moreover, he submits that in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 2008-2009 being Income Tax Appeal No.1843 of 2016, this Court by order dated 06.03.2019 declined to admit identical question framed. 5. However, Mr. Malhotra submits that while declining to admit the above question, this Court did not take into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Limited Vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich is identical in the present case. 7.1. We also note that the said decision of this Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Limited, 410 ITR 466. 8. In the light of the above, we do not find any good ground to entertain this question for consideration. 9. In so far question No.2 is concerned, the same relates to deletion by the first appellate authority of the disallowance made by the assessing officer by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. We find that this question is intertwined with question No.1. We also find that this issue was raised by the Revenue in the case of the assessee itself in Income Tax Appeal Nos.766 and 820 of 2016 before this Court decided on 04.12.2018. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance made under Section 14A of the Act. Since disallowance under the substantive provision have been interfered with, question of consequential adjustments in book profit under Section 115JB of the Act does not arise. 13. In view of above, we are also not inclined to entertain this question as framed by the Revenue for consideration. 14. This brings us to the last question framed by the Revenue, which is deletion by the Tribunal of an amount of Rs. 3,32,867.00, the addition of which was made by the assessing officer under Section 69-C of the Act as bogus purchases. 15. From the assessment order, we find that assessing officer had noted that the respondent - assessee had made purchases of Rs. 3,23,944.00 and Rs. 8,923.00 fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions made by the assessee. We notice that the AO has simply relied upon the Sales Tax Department report about suspicious dealers, without making independent inquiries. On the contrary, the assessee has furnished all the materials to prove the genuineness of purchases and the AO has failed to show that those materials were bogus. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that there is no justification in doubting the genuineness of purchases made by the assessee. Further, these alleged bogus purchases forms a minor fraction of total volume of the assessee company and it is stated that there is no day to day involvement of the management. It was further submitted that the assessee is....