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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

67,02,658/- which is around 14 times. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the action of the AO of making a aggregate disallowance of Rs 22,90,37,426/- on account of bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course

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

bogus purchase bills issued by various Hawala Dealers. It is a well various Hawala Dealers. It is a well settled legal position that the settled legal position that the notice u/s 148 of the Act can be issued if the Assessing Officer notice u/s 148 of the Act can be issued if the Assessing Officer notice

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

bogus purchase bills issued by various Hawala Dealers. It is a well various Hawala Dealers. It is a well settled legal position that the settled legal position that the notice u/s 148 of the Act can be issued if the Assessing Officer notice u/s 148 of the Act can be issued if the Assessing Officer notice

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 ()

section 68 of the Act. Man Industries (I) Ltd. ITA Nos. 617, 618 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the explanation provided by the appellant

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 ()

section 68 of the Act. Man Industries (I) Ltd. ITA Nos. 617, 618 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the explanation provided by the appellant

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

section 3 of Taxation and other axation and other laws (relaxation of certain laws (relaxation of certain provisions) ordinance, 2020, by ordinance, 2020, by way of notification issued, the time limit the time limit for passing the assessment order passing the assessment order was extended up to 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021

ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK KHUSALDAS MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3019/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer – Shri Deepak Khusaldas बनाम/ 24(1)(4), Mehta, V. R. No. 502, Prop. Mehta Steel C-13, Syndicate, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, 201, Ganga, R.S. Marg, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (East) Bandra (East), Mumbai –400 097. Mumbai – 400 051`. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpm7200P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(2) of the Act, it was observed by the AO that the assessee has made purchases of Rs. 6,93,56,301/-. The assessee was called upon to file the details of purchases like TIN, name & addresses of parties from whom the purchases were made. The assessee filed the details along with documentary evidences. Meanwhile, information was received

SEA LINKERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

Section 142(1) of the 1961 Act were later issued to the assessee in compliance with statutory requirements. These are admittedly undisputed facts between rival parties. 3.3 The AO had received information from DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai that the assessee has claimed bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 33,65,552/- in previous year relevant to AY 2010-11 from