CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)
…1,00,000/- each on 20.10.2016 and 1.11.2016 as explained source of cash deposits made by the Appellant thereby making an addition of the same on ad hoc basis, viz, Rs. 12,66,500/-. ii)Section 115BBE is not retrospective: i). In the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd 119 CTR 222 (SC) it was held that, "As per well established law provision regarding levy of penalty and increased rate are in the nature of substantive law and not objective law,". ii. In the case of Vatika Township (P) Ltd 367 ITR 466 (SC) it was held that, "Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or…