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 - 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

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

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 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 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

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

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

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

249(Guj.) 6 | P a g e I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 d) CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (2013) 40 taxmann.com 494(Guj.) 5.2 The assessee also submitted that these purchases are reflected in its books of accounts. It was also submitted by assessee before learned CIT(A) that the assessee has duly reflected these purchases in sales tax return filed

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Shri Nitin P. Chheda 2. In so far as the validity of assessment is concerned, briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed returns of income for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently by way of issue of notice dated

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Shri Nitin P. Chheda 2. In so far as the validity of assessment is concerned, briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed returns of income for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently by way of issue of notice dated

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Mrs. Prabhaben K. Gala 2. In so far as the validity of assessment is concerned, briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed returns of income for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently by way of issue of notice dated

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Mrs. Prabhaben K. Gala 2. In so far as the validity of assessment is concerned, briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed returns of income for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently by way of issue of notice dated

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

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

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