288), Pr.CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (

241 Taxmann 199High Court2016#678 most cited

What is 288), Pr.CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd ( authority for?

Statements recorded under Section 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify additions in unabated assessments. Corroboration is generally required for such statements to form the sole basis of additions.

147

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr.CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd · 241 Taxmann 199 · Section 132(4) statement · incriminating material · unabated assessments · additions in search assessment · statement alone · search and seizure assessment · Section 153A · corroboration of statement · income surrender · Best Infrastructure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 132Section 69ASection 147Section 131Section 153ASection 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 153(a)section 158bbaccumulated profitsgaarretracted statementsection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)section 142asurrender of income

Judgments citing 288), Pr.CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1046/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ DCIT-CC, 3(4) C/o Rajendra & Associates 19th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamb…

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4443/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4442/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4441/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamla Shanti Developers P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3) (4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4390/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4389/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4388/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4387/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4386/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4385/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT ()()-CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4384/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…

Kamla Shanti Ladmarc Property P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cent. Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4383/MUM/2019[2014*15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt. Ltd. According to the…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4382/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt. Ltd. According to the…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4381/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt. Ltd. According to the…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4380/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt. Ltd. According to the…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4379/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt. Ltd. According to the…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4378/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt. Ltd. According to the…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4377/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt. Ltd. According to the…

Kamlashri Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4350/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…itions in unabated assessments. The Revenue further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs Anand Kr. Jain HUF (133 taxmann.com 288), Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5680 & 5681/Mum/2019), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to the Revenue, since the statement of the Dire…