Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.22. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction…

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

…t. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction of penal interest which had accrued not in the previous year…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction of penal interest which had accrued not in the previous year…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction of penal interest which had accrued not in the previous year…

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…s Kurian, Asst. Dinesh S. Jain CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 4.20. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction…

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record and other material were all common which were being 25 & 2698/Mum/2016 v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 4.20. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction…

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record and other material were all common which were being 25 & 2698/Mum/2016 v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 4.20. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction…

MOHD HASAN ABDUL GAFOOR MOMIN,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(2), KALYAN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had 29 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 3.22. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accountin…

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

…P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.24. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), 28 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of account…

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

…P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 57 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 7.22 In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wher…

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21 In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 26 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. wherein, the assessee w…

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21 In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 26 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. wherein, the assessee w…

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21 In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 26 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. wherein, the assessee w…

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21 In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 26 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. wherein, the assessee w…

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21 In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 26 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. wherein, the assessee w…

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…income escaping assessment under section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21 In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 26 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. wherein, the assessee w…