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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

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

purchase of site development right from that company invoking the provisions of Section 40 A (2) (b) and 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

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

37(1). However, the CIT(A) confirmed the State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) disallowance on the ground that the fund set-up by the assessee is managed by independent trustees and that the assessee does not have control over the management of the Trust. Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that the claim

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

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

37(1). However, the CIT(A) confirmed the State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) disallowance on the ground that the fund set-up by the assessee is managed by independent trustees and that the assessee does not have control over the management of the Trust. Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that the claim

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

1)", "Section 10(34)", "Section 234A", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 234D"], "issues": "Whether the purchases of gold coins were bogus and disallowable under Section 37

ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

37,251 Total Total 2,75,25,669/ 2,75,25,669/- 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus bills, assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market assessee

NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

37,251 Total Total 2,75,25,669/ 2,75,25,669/- 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus bills, assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market assessee

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

purchases are genuine. The assessee could not establish movement of material as well could not produce the parties before Revenue. The books of accounts were rejected by AO u/s 145(3) of 1961 Act. Thus, we are inclined to confirm the appellate order of learned CIT(A) and this appeal filed by the assessee is 31 Navnidhi Steel & Engg

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

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)

37 Dena Bank number of years had the approval of the income-tax authorities. Interestingly, even for future assessment years, the very same accounting practice was accepted. [Para 16] It was in that context, the question that assumed importance was as to whether powers could be exercised under section 263 when two views were possible. [Para 17] The matter could

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:

37(1), it would follow that original return contained inaccurate particulars - Held, yes - Whether therefore, assessee was liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes [Para 38] [In favour of revenue] [2016] 69 taxmann.com 60 (Jaipur - Trib.) Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1) v. Bhansali Trading Corporation Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty