Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal

290 CTR 263High Court2016#102 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal authority for?

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

583

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Harjeev Aggarwal · section 132(4) · section 158BB(1) · incriminating material · undisclosed income · search and seizure · statement recorded · income tax assessment

Also reported as

70 Taxmann.com 95

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 158bbsection 158basection 153(a)section 201(3)section 150unexplained jewellerystatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

Kamlashri Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

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

ITA 4349/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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

Kamlashri Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

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

ITA 4348/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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

Kamlashri Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

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

ITA 4347/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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

Kamlashri Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

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

ITA 4346/MUM/2019[2010-1]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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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 4345/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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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 4344/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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

Kamla Ankur Developer, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), CC, Mumbai

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

ITA 4224/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.4219 To 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14) Kamlaankur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Perbench 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. 2013-14. 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.4219 to 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14) KamlaAnkur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAIFK4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date of Hearing: 1…

Kamla Ankur Developer, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3) (4) -CC, Mumbai

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

ITA 4223/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.4219 To 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14) Kamlaankur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Perbench 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. 2013-14. 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.4219 to 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14) KamlaAnkur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAIFK4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date of Hearing: 1…

Kamla Ankur Developer, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4222/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.4219 To 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14) Kamlaankur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Perbench 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. 2013-14. 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.4219 to 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14) KamlaAnkur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAIFK4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date of Hearing: 1…

Kamla Ankur Developer, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4221/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.4219 To 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14) Kamlaankur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Perbench 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. 2013-14. 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.4219 to 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14) KamlaAnkur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAIFK4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date of Hearing: 1…

Kamla Ankur Developer, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

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

ITA 4220/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.4219 To 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14) Kamlaankur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Perbench 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. 2013-14. 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.4219 to 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14) KamlaAnkur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAIFK4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date of Hearing: 1…

Kamla Ankur Developer, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), CC, Mumbai

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

ITA 4219/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.4219 To 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14) Kamlaankur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Perbench 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. 2013-14. 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.4219 to 4224/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14) KamlaAnkur Developers बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAIFK4903G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date of Hearing: 1…

Kamla Shubham Estate, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC -(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4217/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.4215 To 4218 & 1577 & 1579/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15) Kamla Shubham Estate बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle (3)(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. P.M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk6226E (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 Orders 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. 2011-12 & Dated 11.02.2019 For Ays 2012-13 & 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4215 to 4218 & 1577 & 1579/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 & 2014-15) Kamla Shubham Estate बिधम/ DCIT Central Circle (3)(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, 19th Floor, Air India Vs. P.M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAIFK6226E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR) सुनवाईकीतारीख…