Lalchand Bhagat\nAmbicaDav v. CIT\n

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)

…the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assesse was adversely affected 2. Lalchand Bhagat Assessment made without disclosing to the AmbicaDav V/s CIT assesse the information supplied by the (37 ITR 28)(SC) department and without giving any opportunity to the assesse to rebate the information is violation of fundamental rules of justice. 3. DHAKESWARI An assessment so made without disclosing to COTTON MILLS LTD. the assesse the information supplied by the v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR departmental representative and without giving 777 any opportunity to t…

ALKA RAJESH VANIGOTA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-52, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…e\nmade the basis of the\nimpugned order is a\nserious flaw which makes\nthe order nullity inasmuch\nas it amounted to violation\nof principles of natural\njustice because of which\nthe assesse was\nadversely affected\n10. Lalchand Bhagat\nAmbicaDav V/s CIT\n(37 ITR 28)(SC)\nAssessment made without\ndisclosing to the assesse\nthe information supplied\nby the department and\nwithout giving any\nopportunity to the assesse\nto rebut the information\nis violation of fundamental\nrules of justice.\n11. DHAKESWARI\nCOTTON MILLS LTD.\nv. CIT [1954] 26 ITR\n777\nAn assessment so made\nwithout disclosing to the\nassesse t…

VIPUL M SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO -17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipul M Shah (Huf) Vs. The Ito 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabhv3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Vimal Punamiya Respondent By : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

…in the case of M/s Mehta Parikh & Co., 30 ITR 181 Reliance is also placed on the following case law: P a g e | 5 Vipul M Shah (HUF) Vs. ITO 17(3)(5) 1. M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 200 2. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Dav Vs. CIT (37 ITR 28) (SC) On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessing officer on the basis of findings of the investigation Directorate of Kolkata indicating bogus Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss claimed by a large number of beneficiaries found that du…

AMIT MAFATLAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19 (1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 5793/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Amit Mafatlal Shah The Asst. Commissioner Of 78/80 Gora Gandhi Building, Income Tax, Circle 19(1), बनाम/ Cp Tank Road, C.P. Tank Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 004 (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabps5009A अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.04.2020

…Assessing Officer cannot be 10 | P a g e Shri Amit Mafatlal Shah. sustained. The assessee relied on the following decision in support of this case. 1. M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006. 2. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Dav vs. CIT (37 ITR 28) (SC) 3. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 777 4. Seth Gurumukh Singh v. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393 5. Jai Karan Sharma vs. DCIT (2012) 23 taxmannc.com 300 (Delhi) 6. Hamish Engineering Industries (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 166 (Mum. Trib.) 7. Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 4 Taxman 29 (SC) 8. C Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962…