Del) DCIT vs. Qualitron Commodities (P) Ltd. 167 TTJ 553 DCIT v. Aakash Arogya Mindir Pvt.Ltd.

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

…(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 presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4…

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)

…(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 presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC)…

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

…(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 made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s…

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)

…(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 presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC…

JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai vs. Krupa Land Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Krupa Land Limited Income Tax (Osd), Cc-39 11, B-Wing, Mittal Towers Mumbai Free Press Journal Marg R.No.32(1), Ground Floor Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aadck1521E Appellant) .. Respondent)

…ence in our fact will make a world of difference - to the conclusion - hence this difference in facts - should make the conclusion different. IV. Also, the decision of Hon‘ble Bangalore ITAT in the case of P. Srinivas Naik Vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Bangalore (2009) 117 ITD 201 (Bang) - clearly holds the following TEST for ‗belong‘ - the ‗term‘ belonging implies something more than the idea of a casual association. It involves the notion of continuity and indicates one more or less intimate connection M/s. Krupa Land Limited with the person over a period of time. The books of account or documents seized during the cours…

ITO WD 5(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalam Gems P. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2)(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Mangalam Gems Pvt. Ltd, 210, Panchratna, Opera House, Mumbai -400 004 Pan: Aabcm8877F .... Respondent C.O. No.91/Mum/13 ( Arising Out Of Ita No.1640/Mum/2013 Assessment Year 2004-05)

…article or thing or books of account or documents seized from the premises of Bharat Shah Group actually belonged to the present appellant. As held by various counts of law including Hon’ble ITAT, Banglore Bench in the case of P.Srinivas Naik V/s ACIT (2009) 117 ITD 201(Bang) has held that the language used in sec. 153C is materially 5 ITA No.1640/Mum/2013 & CO No.91/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2004-05) different from the language used in section 153BD. The expression belonging to the assessee cannotes both the complete ownership and limited ownership or interest. However, there should be some limited ownership…