H.R. Mehta v. ACIT

SURAT GOODS TRANSPORT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

…sued on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction of the DDIT whereby the statement of Shri Rajesh G. Mehta was recorded and used against the appellant. [Refer Bombay High Court in the case of Hari Darshan Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (456 ITR 542) and H.R. Mehta (387 ITR 561)] 1.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CITI(A) erred in not holding that the reopening notice u/s 148 r.w.s. 148A of the Act has been issued without taking the proper approvals from the correct designated authority as per sec 151(2) of the Act, thereby rendering the entire reopening bad in law. [Refer Bombay High Court in the case…

ADVANCED COMPUTERS AND MOBILES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Advanced Computers & Mobiles Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai Room No. 533, 5Th Floor, India Private Limited Vs Unit No. 9, Ground Floor, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Yusuf Building, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aamca5425A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

…d Mobiles India Private Limited be deleted. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the following decision:  Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959)37 ITR 271 (SC)  CIT vs Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 315 (SC)  H.R. Mehta vs ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom) 7. In support of ground no. 5, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has filed application for rectification under section 154 before assessing officer and explained that in the original return of income, the assessee inadvertently missed to claim deduction of excess VAT and GST paid by assessee. Thus, return was revised after…

RICHA FINANCE & INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed and the addition u/s 68 for Rs

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

…he search in the case of Shri Pravin Jain was not provided to the assessee, which was the sole basis of addition in the present case, it is clear violation of the ratio of law laid by Hon’ble Mumbai high Court in the case of H R Mehta Vs. ACIT, Mumbai, (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bombay), that assessing 6 Richa Finance & Investment Private Limited officer should have provided assessee the material used against him apart from providing opportunity to cross examine the deponents, whose statements were relied upon. In this respect the assessee submitted a copy of retraction from statements given during the search by Shri P…

NANDKISHORE TELEFILMS & MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 7(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…he ground of not allowing cross\nexamination of parties whose statement AO is relying on particularly the\njudgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries V.\nCIT, 281 CTR 241 along with following decisions.\n1. H.R. Metha Vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bom HC)\n2. C Vasantlal& co. Vs. CIT, 45 ITR 206 (SC)\n3. KishinchandChellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC)\n4. CIT Vs. Ashish International, ITA No. 4299 of 2009.\n5. CIT Vs. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Bom)\n6.3 It was contented by Ld. AR that in the statement of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt, he\nhas replied regarding unsecured loans to only one party…