Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram v. CIT

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…the (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11) M/s. Diamond Creations assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…the (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11) M/s. Diamond Creations assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…the (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11) M/s. Diamond Creations assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. Nos.1448, 1449 & 1467/Mum/2017 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dy. CIT-CC-7(2), M/s. Manba Finance Ltd. Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, 324, Runwal Height, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp. Nirmal Lifestyle, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 PAN/GIR No. AAACM 4681 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Respondent by : Dr. P. Daniel Date of Hearing : 06.08.2018 : 05.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are appeals by the Revenu…

SMC Indu (Jv), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Smc Indu (Jv) V. Acit – 18(2) 5Th Floor, Shop No. 9, Ground Kamana Chs Ltd., Building No. 1, Prabhadevi, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400 028 Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Ablfs 6305 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of 5 M/s. SMC INDU (JV) the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not fi…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

…ed. The Ld. CIT (A)has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 and 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT (A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT (A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applies the ratio laid down by High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

Dhansukh Rawajibhai Patel, Palghar vs. ACIT Palghar, Palghar

In the result, appeal is on this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dhansukh Rawajibhai Acit Patel Palghar. Machhipada Sarawali, Vs. Po, Boisar, Tal & Po, Palghar - 401501 Pan: Abqpp9188B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ing on the sale of plot in full without considering the fact that all 3 co-owners have shown their share of ¼ the LTCG in their respective returns. The learned AR relied upon the decision of Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713, Ponkunnam Traders [83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366(Ker.], Prakash Chand Natha Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 301 ITR 134 and P.C.Nahata [247 ITR 274 SC], S. Khader Khan Son [300 ITR 157 Madras] & Vinodkumar Solanki [233 ELT 157S.]. The learned AR relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur Vs. Kaml…

DCIT Cir 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Manohar Manek Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5586/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Manohar Manak, Alloys P L Tax Cir 4(2)(2), 44, C P Tank Road, C P Tank, Vs. R. No.642, 6Th Floor, Mumbsi-400002 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacm2688K अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Shivaji Gode प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By Ms.Nimisha Bothara सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 7.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :16.1.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2015, Passed By The Cit(A)-9, Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Revenue Are As Under :

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

Govind Bhilu Rathod, Vasai vs. ITO WD 4(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accepted

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 439/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

Grrentex Exports India, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D.Jainसर्वश्री ए.डी. जैन, न्याययक सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3311/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10) बनाम/ M/S Greentex Exports India, Income Tax -Ward 14(2)(4), Modi Estate, 1St Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Opp. Chirag Nagar Police Stn. Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400080 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Rajeev G Kalathil, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5312/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Rajeev G Kalathil, Tax -25(3), M-605, Regency Park, Vs. 308, C-11, Rna Millennium Township, Bandra-Kurla Complex, M G Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400067 Mumbai-400051 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the parties, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Tarla R Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine 12 ACIT Vs. Tarla R Shah the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…