Held that the Assessing Officer had relied on the Central Excise Department’s investigation and findings, which were made basis to conclude that the assessee-companies were involved in booking bogus purchases through various persons which were found to be non-existing. However, the order of the Assessing Officer was on March 31, 2016 and on December 5, 2018 the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in its order had accepted the claim of the assessee-companies that they were engaged into genuine purchases and manufacturing activities holding that the allegations were based only on assumptions and presumptions and it could not be held that the assessees had not manufactured the goods during the period. Eligible to deduction. (AY.2008-09 to 2013-14)
Asst. CIT v. Ambika International (2023)107 ITR 8 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib) Asst. CIT v. Jay Ambet Aromatics (2023)107 ITR 8 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib) Asst. CIT v. Shiva Mint Industries (2023)107 ITR 8 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)
S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings-Search and seizure-Manufacturing expenses-Bogus purchases-Statement retracted Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the assesses engaged in genuine purchases and manufacturing activities-Entitled to deduction.[S.153A]