“incriminating material”

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

appeal before us on this issue. 3.6. The assessee has also raised an additional ground before us stating that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to this disallowance made on account of bogus purchases. This additional ground goes to the root of the matter ... books of accounts maintained by the assessee which were found during the course of search by the search party could be construed as an incriminating material found during the course of search. In our considered opinion, the answer would be an emphatic “No”. The books of accounts are regularly maintained

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

appeal before us on this issue. 3.6. The assessee has also raised an additional ground before us stating that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to this disallowance made on account of bogus purchases. This additional ground goes to the root of the matter ... books of accounts maintained by the assessee which were found during the course of search by the search party could be construed as an incriminating material found during the course of search. In our considered opinion, the answer would be an emphatic “No”. The books of accounts are regularly maintained

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

appeal before us on this issue. 3.6. The assessee has also raised an additional ground before us stating that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to this disallowance made on account of bogus purchases. This additional ground goes to the root of the matter ... books of accounts maintained by the assessee which were found during the course of search by the search party could be construed as an incriminating material found during the course of search. In our considered opinion, the answer would be an emphatic “No”. The books of accounts are regularly maintained

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

appeal before us on this issue. 3.6. The assessee has also raised an additional ground before us stating that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to this disallowance made on account of bogus purchases. This additional ground goes to the root of the matter ... books of accounts maintained by the assessee which were found during the course of search by the search party could be construed as an incriminating material found during the course of search. In our considered opinion, the answer would be an emphatic “No”. The books of accounts are regularly maintained

DCIT Cir 4(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gemini Engi Fab Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on legal ground that where in case of completed/unabated assessment, no incriminating material is found during the course of search the assessment under section 153A/153C of the Act is to be made on originally assessed/returned income ... same. 4 M/s. Gemini Engi Fab Ltd. 7.9 it is evident that there is no discussion in the assessment order about any specific incriminating material found during the course of search operation in relation to the impugned addition on account of estimating the net profit of the appellant: neither

DCIT CC, -7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Glamour Health Care Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenueis dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit, Cc-7(2), Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Glamour Health Care Pvt. Ltd. 4 Kiran Villa, 34, Ram Mandir Road, Danda, Khar (West), Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaacn2617F ..... Respondent Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 24.08.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

assessment u/s 153C was done solely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act by ignoring the fact that incriminating material was availablewith AO which was duly recorded in the satisfaction note. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case ... Case of the assessee centralised and notice u/s 153C was issued based on the statement of one Shri Dev Kumar Thakkar although no incriminating material in the form of any gold, bullion, cash or any document which goes against the assessee. b) Despite of assessee specific demand for satisfaction note

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwinkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that addition of Rs.1,25,428/- was not based any incriminating material found during the course of search conducted u/s 132 of the Act. The relevant part of the decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: ITA Nos. 132 to1324/Mum/2022 ... submissions on merit, the assessee has also contended that the AO did not have jurisdiction to make this addition without having support of any incriminating material in the case of an assessment u/s 153C which was not abated. I, therefore, proceed to adjudicate the issue relating to validity

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1)., Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwingkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that addition of Rs.1,25,428/- was not based any incriminating material found during the course of search conducted u/s 132 of the Act. The relevant part of the decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: ITA Nos. 132 to1324/Mum/2022 ... submissions on merit, the assessee has also contended that the AO did not have jurisdiction to make this addition without having support of any incriminating material in the case of an assessment u/s 153C which was not abated. I, therefore, proceed to adjudicate the issue relating to validity

Sheetal Clothing Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

learned AR also raised a legal ground contesting that the Assessing Officer could not have made addition in these years in the absence of incriminating material since all the three years under consideration fall under the category of unabated assessments. 6. As noticed earlier search conducted in the hands ... years will fall under the category of unabated assessments. It is the submission of the learned AR that the Revenue did not unearth any incriminating material warranting disturbance of already completed assessments. Accordingly it was contended that the additions made in all these three years are not correct

Sheetal Clothing Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

learned AR also raised a legal ground contesting that the Assessing Officer could not have made addition in these years in the absence of incriminating material since all the three years under consideration fall under the category of unabated assessments. 6. As noticed earlier search conducted in the hands ... years will fall under the category of unabated assessments. It is the submission of the learned AR that the Revenue did not unearth any incriminating material warranting disturbance of already completed assessments. Accordingly it was contended that the additions made in all these three years are not correct

Joint CIT (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Nabendu Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 875/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Nabendu Engineering Jcit (Osd), Cen. Cir-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, 902, Pratistha बिधम/ 85, Podar Centre, Parel Bhavan, Old Cgo Post Office Lane, Opp. Vs. Bldg.(Annex), M. K. Road, Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaecn2103N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr Shri Siddharth Kothari, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C For Ay 2013-14. 2

assessee has raised legal grounds on the ground that the additions made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material or evidence found during the course os 3 I.T.A. No. 875/Mum/2022 Nabendu Engineering Pvt. Ltd. search relating to the additions made by AO and is beyond the scope ... assessee has raised various legal grounds challenging that addition in respect of share application money was not based on any incriminating material or documents found during the course of search and has no co-relation with the satisfaction note or material referred therein. Thus, the entire addition is without

M/S. Simtools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7(3) ( Earstwhile DCIT- Cent. Cir-42), Mumbai

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 7(3), M/S Simtools Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai (Erstwhile Dcit- 412, Floor-4, 17G, Central Circle – 42) Vardhaman Chamber, Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Cawasji Patel Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1757M Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2022

learned CIT(A) challenging the order on jurisdiction, approval and on the merits of the addition. i. On the issue of absence of incriminating material, the ld. CIT(A) held that there are enough indications of the evidence of incriminating material particularly unaccounted cash discovered during the course of search ... further held that, the satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO is also correct as statement based on the discovery of unaccounted cash and incriminating material is enough to arrive at the satisfaction of the transaction found in the case M/s. Simtools Pvt Ltd; A.Y. 2010-11. of another person belonged