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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

forward losses of ₹ 65,42,13,876/– on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income in time with respect to the relevant years to which these losses pertain. 020. Assessee approached the learned CIT – A wherein he confirmed the disallowance of estimated addition of ₹ 506,455,949/– on account of alleged bogus purchases

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

bogus losses' on presumptions. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO and Hon'ble DRP has erred in disallowing the brought forward and carry forward of capital losses including those of previous years. All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS ) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

bogus losses' on presumptions. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO and Hon'ble DRP has erred in disallowing the brought forward and carry forward of capital losses including those of previous years. All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases is sustained. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. assessee are accordingly partly allowed. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2018-19. The grounds raised

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases is sustained. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. assessee are accordingly partly allowed. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2018-19. The grounds raised

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

bogus long term additions made on account of bogus long term additions made on account of bogus long term capital gain on the ground that the evidences capital gain on the ground that the evidences capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry found during search at the premises of entry found

ITO 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. I.A. & I.C PVT .LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

carry forward loss without appreciating the fact the assessee is not entitled for such loss since assessee failed to furnish return of income within stipulated time period ? 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (A) was right on directing the AO to subtract the sum of Rs. 76,235/- from

ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK KHUSALDAS MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3019/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer – Shri Deepak Khusaldas बनाम/ 24(1)(4), Mehta, V. R. No. 502, Prop. Mehta Steel C-13, Syndicate, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, 201, Ganga, R.S. Marg, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (East) Bandra (East), Mumbai –400 097. Mumbai – 400 051`. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpm7200P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Loss Account. Hence no addition is called for. 3. The appellant prays that the addition of Rs.18,48,429/- be deleted as unwarranted and unjustified. ITA 3019/Mum/2014 21 4. Without prejudice to the above the appellant prays that the addition be reduced to reasonable appropriate rate depending upon the circumstances of the Appellant’s case. II. 1. The appellant craves

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 ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding