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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

270/-. The learned Assessing Officer challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) before ITAT. However, during the pendency of the appeal search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 24th March, 2013. During the course of search, statements were recorded and it was found that in purchase no standard operating procedure was followed

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

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

bogus purchases and fictitious sales booked by the assessee in its books of account on the ground that although the assessee claims to have booked fictitious sales in its books of account in order to enhance sales turnover for the purpose of obtaining bank finance, but failed to file necessary evidence to prove that sales turnover booked in books

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

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

bogus purchases and fictitious sales booked by the assessee in its books of account on the ground that although the assessee claims to have booked fictitious sales in its books of account in order to enhance sales turnover for the purpose of obtaining bank finance, but failed to file necessary evidence to prove that sales turnover booked in books

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the three-paper books submitted by the assessee containing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the three-paper books submitted by the assessee containing

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the three-paper books submitted by the assessee containing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the three-paper books submitted by the assessee containing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the three-paper books submitted by the assessee containing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the three-paper books submitted by the assessee containing

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the three-paper books submitted by the assessee containing