Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M v. Mathew Vs. ITO

45 ITD 473Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1993#6819 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 54FSection 132Section 132(4A)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 50C

Issues it is cited on

personcompanytotal income

Judgments citing Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M v. Mathew Vs. ITO

ABDUL LATHIEF MAHAMMED ARIF,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-5(2), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. P.N.Rajan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54F

…ed on several judicial precedents including: • Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) (SC) • CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259) (Mad) • CIT v. Bhanwarlal Murwatiya (215 CTR 489) (Raj) • Paramjit Singh v. ITO (P&H HC) • ITO v. W.D. Estate (P) Ltd. (45 ITD 473) (Bom) 5. The Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was contended that: • The seized loose sheet clearly reflected the actual sale consideration. • The purchaser had admitted payment of cash during search proceedings. • The assessee himself admitted that he alone handled the transaction. • The conduct of the assessee in adoptin…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SANGAM PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 674/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.674/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Circle-5, Pune. Vs. Sangam Press Private Limited, 17-B, Sangam House, Sangam Press Road, Pune- 411038. Pan : Aaccs5995B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Assessee By Shri C. H. Naniwadekar : Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, [In Short The “Cit(A)”] Pune’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023- 24/1060642739(1), Dated 08.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 43C

…ITR 30 (Guj) ii) CIT v. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 374 (Delhi) 9 iii) Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (193 ITR 694) (Bombay High court) iv) Champions Construction Co. (5 ITD 495) (ITAT Mumbai) v) ITO v. W.D, Estates (P.) Ltd. [1993] 45 ITD 473 (Bom.) 3.10 Further, the contention of the appellant that the percentage of project completion method is not applicable to the facts of the case under appeal is also supported by AS-7, AS-9, Revised Guidelines of 2012 issued by ICAI and also copies of agreements to sale the flats. The terms and conditions of the agreement do not in any way suggest…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…pers: Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT TTJ 064 786 (Del) ACIT Vs. Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TTJ 393 (Jab) Kantilal & Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee’s income, we…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…pers: Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT TTJ 064 786 (Del) ACIT Vs. Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TTJ 393 (Jab) Kantilal & Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee’s income, we…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…pers: Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT TTJ 064 786 (Del) ACIT Vs. Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TTJ 393 (Jab) Kantilal & Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee’s income, we…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5/RPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, A.R
Section 145(3)Section 14A

…t Ltd (supra), the jurisdictional Bench Hon’ble ITAT; (b) ACIT vs. M/s Super Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd, ITA No. 139 to 141/BLPR/2010; (c) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288; (d) Income Tax Officer vs. W.D. Estate P. Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom) 143 : 45 ITD 473; (e) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 159 (Delhi); (f) Mangilal Rameshwarlal Soni (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax (2004) 83 TTJ (Jd) 770: (2004) 4 SOT 680 (Jd); (g) Bansal Strips (P) Ltd & Ors. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 100 TTJ(Del)665 : (2006) 99 ITD 177(Del) by the Hon…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 62/Rpr/2018) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, A.R
Section 14A

…. Ltd. (supra), the jurisdictional Bench Hon’ble ITAT; (b) ACIT vs M/s Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.139 to 141/BLPR2010; (c) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: (1959) 37 ITR 288; (d) Income Tax Officer vs. W.D. Estae P. Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom) 143 : 45 ITD 473; (e) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 159 (Delhi); (f) Mangilal Rameshwarlal Soni (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 83 TTJ (Jd) 770 : (2004) 4 SOT 680 (Jd); (g) Bansal Strips (P) Ltd & Ors. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 100 TTJ (Del) 665 : (2006) 99 ITD (Del) by the Hon…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ET INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3563/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-28, Room E-9, Panchsheel Park, No.317, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110017 Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Revenue Assessee Cross Objection No.277/Del/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3563/Del/2016) [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, E-9, Panchsheel Park, Central Circle-28, Room New Delhi-110017 No.317, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Assessee Revenue Revenue By Sh. Satpal Gulati Cit-Dr Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate

Section 132Section 153A

…3 SCR(3) 952 (SC) v. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746/139(SC) vi. Central Bureau of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla &b Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) vii. A.S. Sivan Pillai vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad.) viii. ITO vs W.D.Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 45 ITD 473(Mum. Trib.) ix. ACIT vs Sat Pal Pandit & Co. (1998) 66 ITD 12 (Asr. Trib.) 17. So far as the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- sustained by the learned CIT(A) is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- has not CO.277/Del/2016 been received by the assessee since the seized document mentions that the cash fro…

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

ITA 3131/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray
Section 132(4)

…data found recorded by Praveen Mishra cannot be relied upon while M/s. Nish Developers framing assessment in the case of appellant. In defence of his arguments and averments, the ld AR placed reliance on the following decisions:- • ITO Vs W D Estate P Ltd ( 45 ITD 473)(Mum) • CIT Vs. RadicoKhaitan Ltd ( 396 ITR 644)(Delhi) • ACIT Vs. DrRanjanPai (109 Taxmann.com 90)(Banglore) He further submitted that during cross examination before AO during assessment proceeding, the employee Mr Pravin Mishra confessed that he has prepared all these data on his own imagination. Therefore, considering the facts of the case an…

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC -6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

ITA 3129/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray
Section 132(4)

…data found recorded by Praveen Mishra cannot be relied upon while M/s. Nish Developers framing assessment in the case of appellant. In defence of his arguments and averments, the ld AR placed reliance on the following decisions:- • ITO Vs W D Estate P Ltd ( 45 ITD 473)(Mum) • CIT Vs. RadicoKhaitan Ltd ( 396 ITR 644)(Delhi) • ACIT Vs. DrRanjanPai (109 Taxmann.com 90)(Banglore) He further submitted that during cross examination before AO during assessment proceeding, the employee Mr Pravin Mishra confessed that he has prepared all these data on his own imagination. Therefore, considering the facts of the case an…

THE ACIT CEN CIR-13, MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURESH V. JAIN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…ble to be set aside. The additions made by the AO is purely on the basis of hear say evidences and not on any tangible evidences. The H'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT was faced with a similar situation while deciding the case of ITO v. W. D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. [1993] 45 ITD 473 (Mum.). In the said case additions were made on account of the on money received by the assessee in respect of sale of property. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed addition partly after being influenced by a report published by Ministry of Finance wherein prevalence of notorious practice of payment of black money in real estate transaction in me…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 233/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…hat there was no tangible material before the AO nor has the AO brought any such evidence on record to corroborate his suspicion. The case of the appellant finds support from the decision in Income Tax Officer Vs. W.D. Estate P Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom.) 143 : 45 ITD 473. 7.27 Similar ratio was laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 18th February 2013 356 ITR 159 (Delhi). I do find considerable force in the submission of the appellant that no unrecorded asset/investment was found during the course of search. The significance of ta…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 232/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…hat there was no tangible material before the AO nor has the AO brought any such evidence on record to corroborate his suspicion. The case of the appellant finds support from the decision in Income Tax Officer Vs. W.D. Estate P Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom.) 143 : 45 ITD 473. 7.27 Similar ratio was laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 18th February 2013 356 ITR 159 (Delhi). I do find considerable force in the submission of the appellant that no unrecorded asset/investment was found during the course of search. The significance of ta…

MRS. REENA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ai, CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 384 (Bom) Umacharan Shaw & Bros (1959) 37 ITR 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)…

MR.RATNESH CHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ai, CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 384 (Bom) Umacharan Shaw & Bros (1959) 37 ITR 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)…

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…y such alleged scam or that he had booked artificial capital gains. The entire addition in the case of the assessee, case rests merely on the statement of third party. As already discussed above, an uncorroborated & unsubstantiated statement of third [19931 45 ITD 473 (Mum) (Page Nos 572-586 of the Paper Book), wherein additions were made on account of on money received by the assessee in respect of sale of property. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition partly after being influenced by a report published by Ministry of Finance wherein prevalence of notorious practice of ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiks…

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…y such alleged scam or that he had booked artificial capital gains. The entire addition in the case of the assessee, case rests merely on the statement of third party. As already discussed above, an uncorroborated & unsubstantiated statement of third [19931 45 ITD 473 (Mum) (Page Nos 572-586 of the Paper Book), wherein additions were made on account of on money received by the assessee in respect of sale of property. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition partly after being influenced by a report published by Ministry of Finance wherein prevalence of notorious practice of ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiks…