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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

bogus purchases. This ground is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the AO for assessment year 2011 – 12. We have confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A for that year. Accordingly for the similar reasons we also dismiss ground number one and two and confirmed the action of the learned CIT – A in allowing telescoping

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

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

purchases as well as bogus sales. It was the contention of the assessee before the lower authorities that no addition could be made in cases where the assessments have been unabated as on date of search, in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judicial precedents including the decision

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

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

purchases as well as bogus sales. It was the contention of the assessee before the lower authorities that no addition could be made in cases where the assessments have been unabated as on date of search, in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judicial precedents including the decision

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

bogus long-term capital gains and share capital etc. According to the Revenue, ACIAL was being managed and controlled by Shri Shah and thus in light of his statement given in the course of his search, the & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd professional fees paid to ACIAL was treated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE- 5(4), MUMBAI vs. PRITHVI REALTORS AND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Prithvi Realtors & Hotels Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-5(4), Vs. 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Room No. 427, Anant Kanekar Marg, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra (East), G Block, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Bandra (E), Pan : Aaccp6911E Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

section 43B of the Act and has held that interest payable to Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank is not required to be deducted from value of work-in-progress. In view of the same, we find that the said decisions do not support the case of the assessee. 11 15. Further, we have gone through the decision

ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN vs. RICH & ROYAL, KALYAN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases disallowed ought to have been upheld. 1.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in not overlooking the fact that the assessee could not submit the quantitative details of the stock [para 10 on page 7 of the order of CIT(A)] 2. Whether

DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Cent Cir-5(1) M/S Hazel Mercantile Ltd. R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Air 181, 2Nd Floor, Ashoka Vs. India Building, Nariman Shopping Centre, L.T. Point, Road, G.T. Hospital Mumbai-400021. Complex, Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaach2671K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Rai, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

purchase amount was not actually paid to the credit of the government. The same was paid by the assessee, much after the date of filing return of income and would only be allowed on payment basis, as provided by section 43B. As per the AO, the assessee has in fact paid the VAT amount in M/s Hazel Mercantile

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Section 37(1)\nof the Act. On facts, qua each of the sub-head of sales & promotion\nexpenses, the AO is noted to have examined the same and made\ndisallowance in the following manner, which is noted to be\nindependent and different from the amounts admitted to be\ndisallowable by Mr. Beli.\nNature of Expenses\nQuantum Disallowed\n- Expenses

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Section 37(1)\nof the Act. On facts, qua each of the sub-head of sales & promotion\nexpenses, the AO is noted to have examined the same and made\ndisallowance in the following manner, which is noted to be\nindependent and different from the amounts admitted to be\ndisallowable by Mr. Beli.\nNature of Expenses Quantum Disallowed\n- Expenses

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies\nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these\ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the\ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal