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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

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

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

purchase during the year?" 3. Question No. i arises out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the issue before the Assessing Officer for proper verification of facts. The record would suggest that the assessee, in view of its success before the Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of interest credited to Interest Suspense Account

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

purchase during the year?" 3. Question No. i arises out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the issue before the Assessing Officer for proper verification of facts. The record would suggest that the assessee, in view of its success before the Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of interest credited to Interest Suspense Account

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

36 Dena Bank "The submission of the revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider the aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. That argument predicated on the assessment order, which apparently did not give any reason while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that, by itself

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. J D ELECTRIC WORKS, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. On further appeal On further appeal, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, , the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced

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

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

36,13,596. The banks have filed suit against the assessee as its account become NPA and possession of several assets of the assessee as well as the guarantors have been taken by the bank under Sarfarsi Act, 2002. The Ld.AR further submitted that majority of the bogus entries passed for the impugned bogus purchases and sales were unilateral entries

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

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

36,13,596. The banks have filed suit against the assessee as its account become NPA and possession of several assets of the assessee as well as the guarantors have been taken by the bank under Sarfarsi Act, 2002. The Ld.AR further submitted that majority of the bogus entries passed for the impugned bogus purchases and sales were unilateral entries

M/S GOLDEN SEAMS TEXTILES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Golden Seams Textiles Pvt. Dcit, Central Circle-5, Ltd., Old Cgo Bldg., Room No. 14, Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S. Vs. 901, Annexe, 9Th Floor, M.K. Rao Road, Parel, Road, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccg 1114 E Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Dharan Gandhi/Vipul J. Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/12/2022

section 153C are not satisfied. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming