incriminating material — 8,981 case laws

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6779/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

claiming that there was lack of jurisdiction on the part of AO because the order was not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the search on the appellant. (b) retaining part of addition made by the AO because in the view of the appellant, no addition could have been ... Appeals 4 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) impugned assessment order, since the same were not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. (c) without prejudice, making addition of Rs.2.55 Cr. as against addition made

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6778/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

claiming that there was lack of jurisdiction on the part of AO because the order was not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the search on the appellant. (b) retaining part of addition made by the AO because in the view of the appellant, no addition could have been ... Appeals 4 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) impugned assessment order, since the same were not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. (c) without prejudice, making addition of Rs.2.55 Cr. as against addition made

DCIT, CC - 5(1), Mumbai vs. Parag Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6773/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

claiming that there was lack of jurisdiction on the part of AO because the order was not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the search on the appellant. (b) retaining part of addition made by the AO because in the view of the appellant, no addition could have been ... Appeals 4 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) impugned assessment order, since the same were not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. (c) without prejudice, making addition of Rs.2.55 Cr. as against addition made

DCIT, CC - 5(1), Mumbai vs. Parag Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6772/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

claiming that there was lack of jurisdiction on the part of AO because the order was not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the search on the appellant. (b) retaining part of addition made by the AO because in the view of the appellant, no addition could have been ... Appeals 4 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) impugned assessment order, since the same were not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. (c) without prejudice, making addition of Rs.2.55 Cr. as against addition made

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6761/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

claiming that there was lack of jurisdiction on the part of AO because the order was not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the search on the appellant. (b) retaining part of addition made by the AO because in the view of the appellant, no addition could have been ... Appeals 4 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) impugned assessment order, since the same were not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. (c) without prejudice, making addition of Rs.2.55 Cr. as against addition made

DCIT, CC 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6759/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

claiming that there was lack of jurisdiction on the part of AO because the order was not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the search on the appellant. (b) retaining part of addition made by the AO because in the view of the appellant, no addition could have been ... Appeals 4 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) impugned assessment order, since the same were not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. (c) without prejudice, making addition of Rs.2.55 Cr. as against addition made

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6757/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

claiming that there was lack of jurisdiction on the part of AO because the order was not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the search on the appellant. (b) retaining part of addition made by the AO because in the view of the appellant, no addition could have been ... Appeals 4 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) impugned assessment order, since the same were not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. (c) without prejudice, making addition of Rs.2.55 Cr. as against addition made

K Ranadheer Reddy, Cuddapah vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy Vs Dcit, Central Circle - 2(1) No.5/19, Kuravapalli (V) C.R. Building, Queen'S Road T. Sundupalli, Cuddapah 516214 Bengaluru 560001 Andhra Pradesh Pan – Amcpr4790E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, Itp Revenue By: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 69Section 69A

case the documents have been included in the assessment proceedings completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.148. The AO took into consideration the statement recorded and the incriminating material found during the course search wherein he noticed that certain unaccounted interest income and unexplained money were declared by the assessee in the statement ... therefore, it falls outside the scope of section 154. 7. The learned DR argued that the entire addition is made based on the incriminating material found during the course of search and on the statement recorded from the assessee. The learned DR also submitted that it is an admitted fact

DCIT - CC- 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Narendra Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1429/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1429/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Shri Narendra Gehlaut Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 875, Sector-17B, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Gurugram, Haryana- Point, Mumbai-400021. 122001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aazpg9630K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai Dated 21.10.2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Additions / Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Is Not Sustainable As They Are Without Reference To Any Incriminating Material Found During The Search, Without Appreciating That The Department Has Filed An Slp Against The Decision Of The Hon'Ble High Court Of Bombay In The Case Of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Limited Reported In 374 Itr 645 (Bom), Which Has Been Admitted & Directed To Be Listed By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India, Vide Order Dated 12.10.2015 Reported In [2015] 64 Taxmann.Com 34 (Sc) ?”

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

erred in holding that the additions / disallowances made in the assessment order is not sustainable as they are without reference to any incriminating material found during the search, without appreciating that the department has filed an SLP against the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay ... unabated assessment (as per second proviso of Section 153A of the Act); and since the AO has made and additions without referring to any incriminating material, he by relying upon the decision of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva

Global Paper Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 12, Mumbai

ITA 7682/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahamanassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153C

aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the first question for determination in this case is :- “as to whether on the basis of alleged incriminating material seized during search at the premises of M/s. R.B. Enterprises on 04.03.2009, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in initiating the proceedings ... obstante provision shows that when the assessment order shows that the assessment proceedings were to be initiated on the basis of incriminating material found in search of a third party, as in the present case, the provisions contained u/s 153C are applicable which specifically excludes application of sections

Global Paper Impex Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 12, Mumbai

ITA 7680/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahamanassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153C

aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the first question for determination in this case is :- “as to whether on the basis of alleged incriminating material seized during search at the premises of M/s. R.B. Enterprises on 04.03.2009, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in initiating the proceedings ... obstante provision shows that when the assessment order shows that the assessment proceedings were to be initiated on the basis of incriminating material found in search of a third party, as in the present case, the provisions contained u/s 153C are applicable which specifically excludes application of sections

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Global Paper Impex Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7603/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahamanassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153C

aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the first question for determination in this case is :- “as to whether on the basis of alleged incriminating material seized during search at the premises of M/s. R.B. Enterprises on 04.03.2009, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in initiating the proceedings ... obstante provision shows that when the assessment order shows that the assessment proceedings were to be initiated on the basis of incriminating material found in search of a third party, as in the present case, the provisions contained u/s 153C are applicable which specifically excludes application of sections