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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

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

57,822,87,822/- were made during the financial year 2006-07 to 2012-13 in the books purchase. The Managing Director (MD) agreed that purchase were not verified and further the MD tabulated the expenditure for several years. 03. Meanwhile, assessee filed an application for settlement of cases under Section 243C of the Act on 5th December

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

section 147(a) is that the 147(a) is that the Assessing Officer had when he assumed Assessing Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for thinking that there jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for thinking that there jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for thinking that there has been some non has been some non-disclosure

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

section 147(a) is that the 147(a) is that the Assessing Officer had when he assumed Assessing Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for thinking that there jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for thinking that there jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for thinking that there has been some non has been some non-disclosure

ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACTUBE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

57,284/- (for A.Y. 2010-11) and made addition under section 69C of the I.T. Act. The AO has also added the GP @8% on the total bogus purchases

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

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

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

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

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

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

57,74,11,400, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. appreciating the facts of the case. 3. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneo 3. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts us in law and on facts of the case and is liable to be set aside

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

57,74,11,400, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. appreciating the facts of the case. 3. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneo 3. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts us in law and on facts of the case and is liable to be set aside

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

57,77,971/- made by the A.O. under section 69C of the Act A.O. under section 69C of the Act treating genuine purchases as bogus

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

57,77,971/- made by the A.O. under section 69C of the Act A.O. under section 69C of the Act treating genuine purchases as bogus