M/S CRESCENT ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1252 & 1253/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Crescent Organics Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Windsor,2Nd Floor, Cst Road, 14(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kalina,Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 098 Pan – Aaacc1690D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.R Respondent By: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.12.2020

purchases expenses. It was also admitted by him that all the members of the governing body of the assesseee institution were fully aware of the functions and modus operandi of such raising of funds by the assessee organisation. On the other hand, Smt. Sujata Ghosh Dastidar, director of HHBRF in her statement had claimed that she had signed the papers

DCIT-CC-8(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SOPARIWALA EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Sopariwala Exports Private Ltd., 21St Floor, Nirmal Room No. 656, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Building, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

bogus donation raised through various brokers in lieu of commission. Based on the above findings and subsequent withdrawal of the registration under Sec. 35(1)(ii) granted to SHGPH by the CBDT vide notification No. 4/2010 dated 20.01.2010. Considering the above development, assessing officer rejected the deduction claimed under Sec. 35(1)(ii) by the assessee and accordingly

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

ii) lorry receipts for different financial years apparently being made by the same person on a single date, (iii) absence of delivery challans, insurance documents, weighment slips, quality certification etc., (iv) improbably less time shown for loading huge quantities of cement bags, (v) the same persons handwriting being found on the lorry receipts of various transporters who are based

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

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

SUPARIWALA EXPORT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

purchasers, sellers, distributors, importers, exporters, traders or otherwise dealers of tobacoo, tobacco leaves, beedies, cigars, cigarettes, pan masala, tobacco masala, tobacco powder, tobacco pastern agro-based products, flowers, etc. 4. In the course of assessment the Assessing Officer examined the claim of expenditure under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. He noted that the assessee debited

DCIT-CC-8(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SOEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Soex India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 656, Vs. 21St Floor, Nirmal Building, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

bogus donation u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act through various brokers in lieu of mission.[Pg 27] of the paper Book (vii) The assessee replied to the show cause vide letter vide order 24/11/2017 wherein it claimed the benefit of Explanation to sec. 35(l)(ii) which states that deduction shall not be denied merely on the ground that

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

PID P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

purchase. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the disallowance on account of bogus expenses/purchases was confirmed and the disallowance u/s 36(1)(ii) on account of commission to Directors was deleted. Thus, the Revenue has filed appeal against the deletion of disallowance u/s 36(1)(ii) and the assessee filed Cross Objection against sustaining the alleged bogus expenses/purchases