522 and UNITEX PRODUCTS LTD. v. ITO

DCIT Cor 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Build Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…rial collected and statement recorded during the Survey u/s 133A are not conclusive piece of evidences by itself Further, the appellant also relies on the decisions given in the following cases - The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Unitex Products Ltd V ITO (22 SOT 429) held that during the course of survey, the officer can record the statement of a person under sub section 3 (iii) of section 133 A, this sub section authorizes the income tax authority to record the statement of any person which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the Act, however the officer is not authorized to record the sta…

ACIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Built Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…rial collected and statement recorded during the Survey u/s 133A are not conclusive piece of evidences by itself Further, the appellant also relies on the decisions given in the following cases - The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Unitex Products Ltd V ITO (22 SOT 429) held that during the course of survey, the officer can record the statement of a person under sub section 3 (iii) of section 133 A, this sub section authorizes the income tax authority to record the statement of any person which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the Act, however the officer is not authorized to record the sta…

DCIT 1(2), Mumbai vs. Maharshtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai

In the result , the Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2004-05 is partly allowed and Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 is allowed

…tion should be allowed as per provisions of section 43(6)(c) of the Act, that loss of Rs.4.06 pertained to loss of stock-in-trade, that same was allowable. He referred to page no.254 and 370 of the paper book and relied upon the cases of Unitex Products Ltd. (22 SOT 429); Packwell Printers (359 ITD 340).Departmental Representative(DR) supported the order of the FAA . 6.3.We have heard the rival submission. As far as loss of stock in concerned, we are opinion that ITA/3813 &others/Mum/09-MSEB/01-02to03-04 same is to be allowed as revenue expenditure. So,the order of the FAA is reversed to that extent. For the bala…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

…TR 271 (SC), West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. JCIT (2006) 100 TTJ MUM Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain & Mrs. Reena Jain 833, ITO v. WD Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 45 ITD 473 (Bom). Addl. CIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom), Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai), CIT v. Balaji Wire (P.) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 393 (Del),Kishinchand Chellaram (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] 43 Taxman 34 (SC), HR Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom), Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

…TR 271 (SC), West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. JCIT (2006) 100 TTJ MUM Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain & Mrs. Reena Jain 833, ITO v. WD Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 45 ITD 473 (Bom). Addl. CIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom), Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai), CIT v. Balaji Wire (P.) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 393 (Del),Kishinchand Chellaram (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] 43 Taxman 34 (SC), HR Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom), Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Faco Fastners P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 6(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Faco Fastners Pvt. R.No.506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., Bhavan 196, Mutton Street M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 Null Bazar, 020 Mumbai – 400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aabcf2490D Appellant) .. Respondent)

…R 20. Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2959/MUM/2014 dt.28.11.2014. 21. Shri.Ganpatraj A.Sanghavi Vs. ACIT. in ITA No.2826/Mum/2013 dt.5.11.2014. 22. West Coast Paper Mills Vs.JCIT[100 TTJ 833(Mum)] 23. ITO Vs. A.CExport[13DTR98(Mum) 24. Unitex Products [22 SOT 429(Mum)], • 25. Teletronics Dealing System Pvt. Ltd. 53 Taxmann.com20(Mum)]. 26. Free India Assurance Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT(132 ITD 60) Mumbai Tribunal. 27. Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd.[49 ITD 177 (Mum).] Therefore, since the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case here is identical to the above mentioned judicial orders, Ground of A…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jostars Orogotech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

…0. Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2959/MUM/2014 dt.28.11.2014. 21. Shri.Ganpatraj A.Sanghavi Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2826/Mum/2013 dt.5.11.2014. 22. West Coast Paper Mills Vs.JCIT[100 TT] 833(Mum)] 23. ITO Vs.A.C Export[13 DTR 98(Mum)]. 24. Unitex Products [22 SOT 429(Mum)]. 25. Teletronics Dealing System Pvt. Ltd. [53 Taxmann.com20(Mum)]. 26. Free India Assurance Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT(132 ITD 60) Mumbai Tribunal. 27. Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd.[49 ITD 177 (Mum).] Therefore, since the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case here is identical to the abovementioned judicial orders, Grounds of ap…

Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Exim Trade Links (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Asst. Cit Cir 6 (2)(2) Vs. M/S. Exim Trade Links R.No.563, Aayakar Bhavan (India) P. Ltd., M.K. Road, Churchgate 31/33, Nishanpada, Dongri Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aaace8448B Appellant) .. Respondent)

…RGR 20. Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2959/MUM/2014 dt.28.11.2014. 21. Shri.Ganpatraj A.Sanghavi Vs. ACIT. in ITA No.2826/Mum/2013 dt.5.11.2014. 22. West Coast Paper Mills Vs.JCIT[100 TTJ 833(Mum)] 23. ITOVs.A.CExport[13DTR98(Mum) 24. Unitex Products [22 SOT 429(Mum)], • 25. Teletronics Dealing System Pvt, Ltd. 53 Taxmann.com20(Mum)]. 26. Free India Assurance Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT(132 ITD 60) Mumbai Tribunal. 27. Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd.[49 ITD 177 (Mum).] Perusal of the appellant's written submission shows that the appellant has stated in Para 4 Page 9 as under;- "The appellant would also li…

Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 2749/Mum/2016 : (A.Y : 2012-13) M/S Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito 8(1)(2) 524-527, Raheja Metroplex Room No.601-A, 6Th Floor (Ijmima) Aayakar Bhavan Behind Goregaon Sports Club M.K.Road Off Link Road, Malad West Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan : Aabcc3318B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K Gopal / Ms Neha Pranjape प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Jintendra Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2017 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : /04/2017

…. The above principle has been laid down in the following decisions relied upon by the id. Counsel for the assessee namely; (A) Notco Exports. Vs. DCIT, 86 lTD 445 (Hyd.), (B) ACIT Vs. SRF Ltd., Vol. 21 SOT 122 (Del.), & (C) Unitex products Ltd. Vs. ITO, Vol. 22 SOT 429 (Mum). 12. The ld. DR however submitted the user was a condition for allowing depreciation and in this regard relied to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal V. CIT,, 267 ITR 768 (Bom). We have perused the aforesaid decision and are of the view that the same is not applicable to the facts of th…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

…- Paul Mathew & Sons v. CIT [2003[ 263 ITR 101 (Ker) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad) [SLP filed by the Department dismissed -210 Taxman 248/254 CTR 228 (SC) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works 328 ITR 384 (Del) Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO [2008] 22 SOT 429 (Mum) DClT v. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mum) (w) The appellant further submits in this regard that the CBDT nas issued instruction dated 10/03/2003 wherein it is categorically stated that no confessional statement be recorded and the emphasis in course of search and survey proceedings must be to collect and gather material or evidences and onl…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

…that statement made by assessee during survey operations has no evidentiary value. For this reliance was placed in the case of Mahesh Ohri v. ACIT (Delhi) . 154 TTJ 33 DeI 'E' (UO) ITR tribunal Volume 23 Part 4 page 522 and UNITEX PRODUCTS LTD. vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai). 17. Mr. N.R.Suresh, Ld. AR further contended that no other collaborating evidence was found during survey for addition except only statement of assessee. Amount surrendered in survey under pressure, no material or evidence was found in support of amount was surrendered, under these 13 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

…that statement made by assessee during survey operations has no evidentiary value. For this reliance was placed in the case of Mahesh Ohri v. ACIT (Delhi) . 154 TTJ 33 DeI 'E' (UO) ITR tribunal Volume 23 Part 4 page 522 and UNITEX PRODUCTS LTD. vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai). 17. Mr. N.R.Suresh, Ld. AR further contended that no other collaborating evidence was found during survey for addition except only statement of assessee. Amount surrendered in survey under pressure, no material or evidence was found in support of amount was surrendered, under these 13 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

…that statement made by assessee during survey operations has no evidentiary value. For this reliance was placed in the case of Mahesh Ohri v. ACIT (Delhi) . 154 TTJ 33 DeI 'E' (UO) ITR tribunal Volume 23 Part 4 page 522 and UNITEX PRODUCTS LTD. vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai). 17. Mr. N.R.Suresh, Ld. AR further contended that no other collaborating evidence was found during survey for addition except only statement of assessee. Amount surrendered in survey under pressure, no material or evidence was found in support of amount was surrendered, under these 13 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

…that statement made by assessee during survey operations has no evidentiary value. For this reliance was placed in the case of Mahesh Ohri v. ACIT (Delhi) . 154 TTJ 33 DeI 'E' (UO) ITR tribunal Volume 23 Part 4 page 522 and UNITEX PRODUCTS LTD. vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai). 17. Mr. N.R.Suresh, Ld. AR further contended that no other collaborating evidence was found during survey for addition except only statement of assessee. Amount surrendered in survey under pressure, no material or evidence was found in support of amount was surrendered, under these 13 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15…

ACIT CC 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

…that statement made by assessee during survey operations has no evidentiary value. For this reliance was placed in the case of Mahesh Ohri v. ACIT (Delhi) . 154 TTJ 33 DeI 'E' (UO) ITR tribunal Volume 23 Part 4 page 522 and UNITEX PRODUCTS LTD. vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai). 17. Mr. N.R.Suresh, Ld. AR further contended that no other collaborating evidence was found during survey for addition except only statement of assessee. Amount surrendered in survey under pressure, no material or evidence was found in support of amount was surrendered, under these 13 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15…

Innovators Facade Systems P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…t statement made by assessee during survey operations has no evidentiary value. For this reliance was placed in the case of Mahesh Ohri v. ACIT (Delhi) . 154 TTJ 33 DeI 'E' (UO) ITR tribunal Volume 23 Part 4 page 522 and UNITEX PRODUCTS LTD. vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai) . He also contended that assessee can retract the admission made during the survey with evidence in view of the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Safe Enterprises 128 ITD 459 (Mumbai). He further contended that no other collaborating evidence was found during survey for addition except only statement of assessee. Amou…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

…that statement made by assessee during survey operations has no evidentiary value. For this reliance was placed in the case of Mahesh Ohri v. ACIT (Delhi) . 154 TTJ 33 DeI 'E' (UO) ITR tribunal Volume 23 Part 4 page 522 and UNITEX PRODUCTS LTD. vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai) . He also contended that assessee can retract the admission made during the survey with evidence in view of the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Safe Enterprises 128 ITD 459 (Mumbai). He further contended that no other collaborating evidence was found during survey for addition except only statement of assessee. Amount…