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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

21 suppliers where no standard operating procedure normally followed by the assessee in respect of its genuine purchases has not been followed and assessee failed to show the transportation detail for the material purchased as well as its consumption at the various sites. Accordingly, the assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 557,079,690/– treating the said purchases is bogus

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

purchases are to be added as hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are recorded and copies of which have been supplied to the recorded and copies of which have been supplied to the recorded and copies of which have been supplied

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

purchases are to be added as hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are recorded and copies of which have been supplied to the recorded and copies of which have been supplied to the recorded and copies of which have been supplied

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

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

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

section 69C of the I.T. Act. The AO has also added the GP @8% on the total bogus purchases. 4. The matter was carried to the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has applied GP margin at 5.07% and restricted the addition to Rs. 30,86,720/-. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The learned D.R. submitted before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. J D ELECTRIC WORKS, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. On further appeal On further appeal, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, , the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced

M/S. PARAS PLASTIC PROCESSORS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-27(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

21 profit element in bogus purchases. The relevant finding of the Ld. profit element in bogus purchases. The relevant finding of the Ld. profit element in bogus purchases. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “6.2 As regards the quantum of addition, the legal view is that where

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

21,10,400/ 29/09/2009 declaring total income at 400/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 01/03/2011. ) on 01/03/2011. Subsequently, on receipt of Subsequently, on receipt of information that assessee had entered into information that assessee had entered into

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

21,10,400/ 29/09/2009 declaring total income at 400/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 01/03/2011. ) on 01/03/2011. Subsequently, on receipt of Subsequently, on receipt of information that assessee had entered into information that assessee had entered into

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

21 as unexplained bogus purchases. under consideration addition of Rs. 48, 04,750/ under consideration addition of Rs. 48, 04,750/- was made by the was made by the Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 2665, 2669, 2676, 2670, 2677, 2681, 2671, 2682/M/2022 & CO No. 146/M/2022 & Ors 2671, 2682/M/2022 & CO No. 146/M/2022 & Ors Assessing