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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

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

35,872,554/–. Therefore several doubts were raised with respect to the genuineness of the above transaction of purchase of development rights by the assessee from that company and hence the learned assessing officer disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee of ₹ 291 crores related to purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

35. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The annual contribution made by the assessee towards Gratuity and Pension Fund increased due to the amendment in the Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the Pension Regulations, 1995. The RBI vide Circular dated 09.02.2011 based on the request from various Banks gave the option to the Bank

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

35. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The annual contribution made by the assessee towards Gratuity and Pension Fund increased due to the amendment in the Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the Pension Regulations, 1995. The RBI vide Circular dated 09.02.2011 based on the request from various Banks gave the option to the Bank

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

35 per cent. 8. In further appeal, the Tribunal had given further relief to the assessee and reduced the Gross Profit rate to 30 per cent. 9. The counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the income-tax authorities wrongly held that appellant has shown bogus purchases, and the books of account were wrongly rejected

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

35 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-t Act, 1961 - Scientific research expenditure (Sub-section (2AB)) - Assessment year 2003-04 - Whether where out of 9 items in respect of capital expenditure of research and development, bills or supporting documents in relation to 6 items had not been produced by assessee, imposition of penalty under section 271(1

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

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,37,613/- u/s.270A of the Act being 200% of alleged tax sought to be evade on estimated disallowance made of Rs.7,76,720/- 2% on bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting

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

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,37,613/- u/s.270A of the Act being 200% of alleged tax sought to be evade on estimated disallowance made of Rs.7,76,720/- 2% on bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting

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

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,37,613/- u/s.270A of the Act being 200% of alleged tax sought to be evade on estimated disallowance made of Rs.7,76,720/- 2% on bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting

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

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,37,613/- u/s.270A of the Act being 200% of alleged tax sought to be evade on estimated disallowance made of Rs.7,76,720/- 2% on bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting

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

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,37,613/- u/s.270A of the Act being 200% of alleged tax sought to be evade on estimated disallowance made of Rs.7,76,720/- 2% on bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting