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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

bogus purchases 4. on the facts in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO’s action of disallowing a sum of ₹ 291,00,00,000/– on account of purchase of development rights of fully developed wind power site acquired from Messer’s Vish wind infrastructure LLP by invoking

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

section 145(3) 145(3) of the Act and made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/- in made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ assessment year 2009 t year 2009-10 and Rs.9,87,466/- in assessment year in assessment year

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

section 145(3) 145(3) of the Act and made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/- in made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ assessment year 2009 t year 2009-10 and Rs.9,87,466/- in assessment year in assessment year

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

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

section 69C are not applicable as source of expenditure incurred is explained by Appellant along with incurred is explained by Appellant along with necessary supporting documents. supporting documents. 5. 5. The Ld. CIT( 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has relied A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has relied on the statements

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

section 69C are not applicable as source of expenditure incurred is explained by Appellant along with incurred is explained by Appellant along with necessary supporting documents. supporting documents. 5. 5. The Ld. CIT( 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has relied A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has relied on the statements

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

Section 132 (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, furth w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, further clarifies that a person may be examined not only er clarifies that a person may be examined not only in respect of the books

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNRISE METALLIC (INDIA) P.LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

150/- holding that the estimate of profit @ 10% of disputed purchases will be fair and reasonable to cover up the difference of GP of purchases from specific parties as well as to plug any leakage of Revenue. Addition is confirmed arbitrarily ignoring the merits of the submissions and is bad in law and the same needs to be deleted

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

150/- was added on account of bogus purchases since the genuineness of the purchases could not be verified. Relevant paras are extracted as below for ready reference: “The CIT(A) further observed that the activities of the accommodation entries in the trading community are not unheard of and further stated that the investigation by the Sales Tax Department concerning