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

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

iii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a loss of Rs. 16,84,481/-on revaluation of on account of loss permanent category investments, even though the same is a notional loss and inadmissible in law? iv. on Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

iii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a loss of Rs. 16,84,481/-on revaluation of on account of loss permanent category investments, even though the same is a notional loss and inadmissible in law? iv. on Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer further disallowed ₹ 60 crores u/s 37 (1) which the assessee voluntarily disallowed in the proceedings before the settlement commission. The AO further made a disallowance of ₹ 121,013,188/– u/s 14 A and disallowance of interest of Rs 243,86,238/– u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion

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

BHOOMI CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed

bogus purchases to 12.5% of the purchase amount while confirming the disallowance of INR 13,17,884/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii

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

iii) On perusal of the statement further reveals that M/s Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd. is receiving commission income on the bogus loan amount. On 25/09/2006, there are deposits of Rs.10,00,000/- & Rs.13,00,000/- and on the same day an amount of Rs.22,57,415/- has been transferred to some other account. (iv) It means that Bhanwarlal Jain Group

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

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

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

iii). It was only the excess of bogus purchases over bogus sales was offered to tax which is the basis for making the additions. (iv). What was found as a result of search was that the assessee indulged itself into booking of bogus purchases and sales both. (v). Therefore, only the net impact thereof is required to be considered while