CIT v. Chetan Das

FLEMINGO DUTY FREE SHOP P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Darling Properties P. Ltd., B-25, V. Dcit, Cc – 47, Sarvoday Soc., Shiv Shrusti, Mumbai Chembur Kurla, Mumbai – 400 078

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Honble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- "8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal, then there was no need to enshrine second proviso to sec. 1…

FLEMINGO (DFS) P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Darling Properties P. Ltd., B-25, V. Dcit, Cc – 47, Sarvoday Soc., Shiv Shrusti, Mumbai Chembur Kurla, Mumbai – 400 078

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Honble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- "8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal, then there was no need to enshrine second proviso to sec. 1…

DARLING PROPERTIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Darling Properties P. Ltd., B-25, V. Dcit, Cc – 47, Sarvoday Soc., Shiv Shrusti, Mumbai Chembur Kurla, Mumbai – 400 078

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Honble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- "8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal, then there was no need to enshrine second proviso to sec. 1…

OLEANDER FARMS P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Transfer Of File To The Ao Of The Assessee. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

…arms Pvt. Ltd., issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia(2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- "8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal, then there was no need to enshrine second proviso to sec. 1…

ABHISHEK LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding 12 ITA No. 4910-2015 (A.Y. 2007-08) Abhishek Lodha, Mumbai the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal…

MANJULA MANGALPRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3)(ERSTWHILE CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment 11 ITA No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha vs. DCIT were to be taken on…

MANJULA MANGALPRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3)(ERSTWHILE CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment 11 ITA No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha vs. DCIT were to be taken on…

MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3) ERSTWHILE CE CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment 11 ITA No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha vs. DCIT were to be taken on…

MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3) ERSTWHILE CE CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment 11 ITA No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha vs. DCIT were to be taken on…

MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3) ERSTWHILE CE CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment 11 ITA No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha vs. DCIT were to be taken on…

JAYANT B PATEL HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC13, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5547, 5548, 5553/Mum/2012 & Ita No.7525/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2001­02, 2003­04 & 2007­08) Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Vs. Acit, Cc­13, Mumbai Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai­49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5455 To 5461/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2001­02 To 2007­08) Acit, Cc­13, Mumbai Vs. Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai­49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5549 To 5552, 5554/Mum/2012 &7524/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2001­02, 2003­04 2004­05,2006­07 & 2007­08) Jayant B. Patel, B/27, Clifton Vs. Acit, Cc­13, Mumbai Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai­49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp 6414 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivaram & Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2016

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal, then there was no need to enshrine second proviso to sec.…

A.C.I.T. CENT.CIR.13, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT B. PATEL(HUF), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5547, 5548, 5553/Mum/2012 & Ita No.7525/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2001­02, 2003­04 & 2007­08) Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Vs. Acit, Cc­13, Mumbai Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai­49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5455 To 5461/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2001­02 To 2007­08) Acit, Cc­13, Mumbai Vs. Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai­49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5549 To 5552, 5554/Mum/2012 &7524/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2001­02, 2003­04 2004­05,2006­07 & 2007­08) Jayant B. Patel, B/27, Clifton Vs. Acit, Cc­13, Mumbai Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai­49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp 6414 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivaram & Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2016

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal, then there was no need to enshrine second proviso to sec.…

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&CO203.13 pedestal, then there was…

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal, then there was no need to enshrine second proviso to sec.…

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal, then there was no need to enshrine second proviso to sec.…

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

…decision on the issue in the case of Shri Kabul Chawla (supra) and others vide order dated 23.5.2014 has expressed the similar view. It has also discussed the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.), while deciding the issue. The relevant para No. 8 & 9 in this regard is being reproduced as under :- “8. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue for the reason that if both the pending and completed assessment were to be taken on same pedestal, then there was no need to enshrine second proviso to sec.…