CIT v. Sanjeev Kumar Jain

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

…ghraj Jain V. UOI (Bombay High Court)\n2. KailashbenManharlalChokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.)\n3. M. Narayanan & Bros. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 201 Taxman 207 (Mag.)\n4. Bansal High Carbons (P)Ltd. 2009) 223 CTR 179 (Del).\n5. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H)\n6. CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendra and others (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad.)\n7. Abid Malik Vs UOI, (2009TIOL272HC Del-FEMA)\n8. CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom),\n9. Srinivas Naik (2009)117 ITD 201 (Bang)\nAddition cannot be made on assumption basis.\nThere must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition\nmade on the basis o…

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

…. Meghraj Jain V. UOI (Bombay High Court) 2. KailashbenManharlalChokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.) 3. M. Narayanan & Bros. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 201 Taxman 207 (Mag.) 4. Bansal High Carbons (P)Ltd. 2009) 223 CTR 179 (Del). 5. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) 6. CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendra and others (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad.) 7. Abid Malik Vs UOI, (2009TIOL272HC Del-FEMA) 8. CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom), 9. Srinivas Naik (2009)117 ITD 201 (Bang) Addition cannot be made on assumption basis. There must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition made on the basis of pres…

ASG CAPITAL SERVICE PVT LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S. ASG CAPITAL SERVICE LLP, HAVING PAN NO. ABCFA2143B) ,MATUNGA S.O vs. ITO CIRCLE-6(2)(1) MUMABI, AAYKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2536, 2537 &

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

…een categorically noted by both the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders. The said statements are therefore not reliable and could not be used in evidence. The ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of CIT v/s Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H). 6.3. The ld. AR argued that statements / material were never confronted to the assessee nor any cross examination of the said parties was granted to the assessee, though the same were specifically asked for multiple times before the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). The assessment order is passed without confronting with the material reli…

ASG CAPITAL SERVICE PVT LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S. ASG CAPITAL SERVICE LLP, HAVING PAN NO. ABCFA2143B) ,MATUNGA S.O vs. ITO- CIRCLE 6(1)(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2536, 2537 &

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

…een categorically noted by both the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders. The said statements are therefore not reliable and could not be used in evidence. The ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of CIT v/s Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H). 6.3. The ld. AR argued that statements / material were never confronted to the assessee nor any cross examination of the said parties was granted to the assessee, though the same were specifically asked for multiple times before the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). The assessment order is passed without confronting with the material reli…

ASG CAPITAL SERVICE PVT LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S. ASG CAPITAL SERVICE LLP, HAVING PAN NO. ABCFA2143B) ,MATUNGA S.O vs. ITO- CIRCLE -6(1)(1)-MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

…een categorically noted by both the Id. AO as well as the Id. CIT(A) in their respective orders. The said statements are therefore not reliable and could not be used in evidence. The Id. AR respectfully relied on the order of CIT v/s Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H). 6.3. The Id. AR argued that statements / material were never confronted to the assessee nor any cross examination of the said parties was granted to the assessee, though the same were specifically asked for multiple times before the Id. AO as well as the Id. CIT(A). The assessment order is passed without confronting with the material relie…

ASG CAPITAL SERVICE PVT LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S. ASG CAPITAL SERVICE LLP, HAVING PAN NO. ABCFA2143B) ,MATUNGA S.O vs. ITO- CIRCLE 6(1)(1) MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2536, 2537 &

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

…een categorically noted by both the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders. The said statements are therefore not reliable and could not be used in evidence. The ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of CIT v/s Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H). 6.3. The ld. AR argued that statements / material were never confronted to the assessee nor any cross examination of the said parties was granted to the assessee, though the same were specifically asked for multiple times before the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). The assessment order is passed without confronting with the material reli…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

…. Meghraj Jain V. UOI (Bombay High Court) 2. KailashbenManharlalChokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.) 3. M. Narayanan & Bros. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 201 Taxman 207 (Mag.) 4. Bansal High Carbons (P)Ltd. 2009) 223 CTR 179 (Del). 5. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) 6. CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendra and others (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad.) 7. Abid Malik Vs UOI, (2009TIOL272HC Del-FEMA) 8. CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom), 9. Srinivas Naik (2009)117 ITD 201 (Bang) Page No. 34 Udayan Grover Addition cannot be made on assumption basis. There must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition…

AAKASH FILMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -50, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

….Meghraj Jain V. UOI (Bombay High Court) 2. KailashbenManharlal Chokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 433 (GUJ.) 3. M. Narayanan & Bros. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 201 Taxman 207 (Mag.) 4. Bansal High Carbons (P)Ltd. 2009) 223 CTR 179 (Del). 5. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) 6. CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendra and others (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad.) 7. Abid Malik Vs UOI, (2009TIOL272HC Del-FEMA) 8. CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom), 9. Srinivas Naik (2009)117 ITD 201 (Bang) -> Addition cannot be made on assumption basis. There must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition made on the basis of pr…

DEEPAK VALJI KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

…legal position, once such statement is recorded, it does not have any evidentiary value. Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Vinod Solanki v. UOI (Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2008) (ii). CIT v. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) 6. "Many other well - settled ‘legal principles” involved like onus, “how to discharge onus, preponderance of probability, etc. However, in view of the above, it may not be necessary at this stage. The existing sale of shares was in accordance with stock exchange online screen based mechanism, for which proper contract notes were issued and…

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

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

…ns to the concerned person or making him available for cross-examination, the order passed by the Tribunal upholding the addition is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the A.O to consider the matter afresh. 23.24 In CIT Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H), it was held that the A.O having made certain addition on the basis of statements of four persons recorded at the back of the assessee without affording an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine those persons before passing the assessment order, despite specific requests, the proceedings conducted by the A.O after recording the statem…