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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,36,90,974/-. Also for the year relevant to A.Y. 2006 07, the assessee was not in possession of bills and other supporting for purchases to the tune of Rs. 5.92 crores. Therefore there was no doubt that the assessee had also indulged in bogus purchases for period prior to 18.10.2008. However, in absence of the books of accounts

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

7,02,338 27960673085V K K TRADING COMPANY K K TRADING COMPANY ARIPS0295C 2009-10 48,308 27650549144V MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES AACPT9032D 2009-10 51,480 Total 12,89,039 6.3 Regarding the assessment year 2010 Regarding the assessment year 2010-11, the list of bogus 11, the list of bogus parties is reproduced as under: reproduced as under

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

7,02,338 27960673085V K K TRADING COMPANY K K TRADING COMPANY ARIPS0295C 2009-10 48,308 27650549144V MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES AACPT9032D 2009-10 51,480 Total 12,89,039 6.3 Regarding the assessment year 2010 Regarding the assessment year 2010-11, the list of bogus 11, the list of bogus parties is reproduced as under: reproduced as under

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

section 147 of the Act on 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/-. In the said 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ Nirmit Jatin Lathia ITA Nos. 4784, 4828/MUM/2023 reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases

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

section 147 of the Act on 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/-. In the said 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ Nirmit Jatin Lathia ITA Nos. 4784, 4828/MUM/2023 reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

section 234A. 234B and 234C and 234D of the Act 234C and 234D of the Act 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under

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

bogus purchases. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in not appreciating that purchases were made from some other parties which were not recorded in the books of accounts and only accommodation bills were obtained from Hawala parties and there by attracting provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases to 25% in place of 100% applied in the asses 100% applied in the assessment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal sment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases to 25% in place of 100% applied in the asses 100% applied in the assessment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal sment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this