WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

WIND WORLD INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

DCIT - CC 3 (1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITEAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

WIND WORLD INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

DCIT - CC 3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITEAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income determined by the AO on account of the addition of bogus purchases and bogus expenses. It is observed that the AO has quantified the unaccounted cash expenses for the relevant year at Rs 24,30,000/-, however, the addition made by him is of Rs 31,32,458/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this fact and adopt

ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

business of purchases and sale purchases and sales and were merely providing merely providing accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had categorically stated on oath that they had merely merely provided accommodation bills and no actual ommodation bills

NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

business of purchases and sale purchases and sales and were merely providing merely providing accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had categorically stated on oath that they had merely merely provided accommodation bills and no actual ommodation bills

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

income of the assessee and without assessee and without considering the decision in Sri. Ganesh Rice considering the decision in Sri. Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All), wherein the entire amount of bogus Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All), wherein the entire amount of bogus Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All), wherein the entire amount

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

purchase treated as income from Hawala dealers as per the income from Hawala dealers as per the information provided by information provided by Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which is bad in law. Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the 2. On the facts

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

purchase treated as income from Hawala dealers as per the income from Hawala dealers as per the information provided by information provided by Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which is bad in law. Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the 2. On the facts

ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACTUBE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

bogus-questions of fact - Tribunal finding assessee did purchase cloth and sell finished fabrics - Not entire purchase price but profit element embedded in purchases liable to tax-Income tax Act, 1961. The assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 was engaged in the business

OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

business of trading in ferrous and non ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The AO got an information from the ferrous metals. The AO got an information from the Sales Tax Department regarding assessee taken purchase bills which ax Department regarding assessee taken purchase bills which ax Department regarding assessee taken purchase bills which was alleged to be bogus. Accordingly