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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

Section 43B 3. 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 set-off of brought forward loss of ₹ 336,508,609/– 4. on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred

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

section 234A. 234B and 234C and 234D of the Act 234C and 234D of the Act 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under

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 purchases, vide assessment order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A). The assessee submitted before learned CIT(A) that

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) ..

249 (Guj) In relevant assessment year assessee made certain purchases from some parties and made payment through cheques-JTO found that parties were not available to cross-examine and that through purchases reclaimed to have been made on credit basis, payments were shown to have been made after substantial lapse of time after date of purchase -ITO held those transactions

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

section 24 of the prohibition of Benami property transaction act 1988 initiated against the recipient of the commission also held that these entities are not bogus. Accordingly he deleted the addition of Rs. 83,15,211/–. 014. Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT – A the learned assessing officer is in appeal. The only ground is taken

PUSHPAK AUXICHEM P. LTD,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(3), KALYAN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-1(3), बनाम/ 241/Business-2, Kasturi Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, Vs. Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Manpada Wayle Nagar, Road, Dombivali (East), Khadak Pada, Thane-421201 Kalyan-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

section 40A(2) of the Act. 13. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has taken into account any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has not been taken into

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 68 of the 1961 Act and the appellate order 29 passed by learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained in view of our aforesaid detailed observations. Thus, under these circumstances we hereby confirm additions to the tune of Rs. 1,77,00,000/- as were made by the Assessing Officer and set aside the appellate order passed

DCIT CIR.7(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PJL CLOTHING INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010 - 2011 Dcit Circle 7(3)(1) Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai बनाम/ Unit No.19, Shree Madhu Estate, Pandurang Budhakar Vs. Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2782R

section 40A(2) of the Act. 13. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has taken into account any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has not been taken into

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

bogus purchases as well as unexplained deposits, the assessee is\nin appeal whereas in respect of relief granted on unexplained\ndeposit in the bank, the Revenue is in appeal.\n4.1 We have heard rival submissions and material placed on\nrecord including Paper Book containing pages 1 to 127 filed by the\nassessee and copy of various decisions filed by both

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

bogus purchases as well as unexplained deposits, the assessee is\nin appeal whereas in respect of relief granted on unexplained\ndeposit in the bank, the Revenue is in appeal.\n4.1 We have heard rival submissions and material placed on\nrecord including Paper Book containing pages 1 to 127 filed by the\nassessee and copy of various decisions filed by both