“first appeal”

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Appeals)-50, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2010 ] for assessment year 2010-11. The first appeal is in respect of quantum in respect of quantum assessment assessment proceedings, whereas second appeal whereas second appeal is in respect of penalty levied

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Appeals)-50, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2010 ] for assessment year 2010-11. The first appeal is in respect of quantum in respect of quantum assessment assessment proceedings, whereas second appeal whereas second appeal is in respect of penalty levied

ACIT 28 (2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Developers, Navi Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

within 3 years when calculated from the date of Purchase vide Sale Deed on 31.12.2007 to date of sale being 15.12.2010 6. In the first appeal, the CIT (A) reversed the opinion of the AO and restored the computation of income under the head "Capital Gain" He further treated

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

09/10/2019 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2011-12. The first appeal is arising out of the assessment order dated 03/10/2018 passed consequent to the order of the ITAT dated 14/06/2017, whereas the second appeal

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

09/10/2019 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2011-12. The first appeal is arising out of the assessment order dated 03/10/2018 passed consequent to the order of the ITAT dated 14/06/2017, whereas the second appeal

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

Thus, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115-O r.w.s. 115Q of the Act and made addition of the aforesaid amount. In first appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2025/Mum/2000 for assessment year

ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

Thus, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115-O r.w.s. 115Q of the Act and made addition of the aforesaid amount. In first appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2025/Mum/2000 for assessment year

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Thus, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115-O r.w.s. 115Q of the Act and made addition of the aforesaid amount. In first appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2025/Mum/2000 for assessment year

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Thus, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115-O r.w.s. 115Q of the Act and made addition of the aforesaid amount. In first appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2025/Mum/2000 for assessment year

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Thus, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115-O r.w.s. 115Q of the Act and made addition of the aforesaid amount. In first appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2025/Mum/2000 for assessment year

Asst CIT CC 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

business u/s.37(1) of the Act and allowed for remaining 50%. This 50% disallowance was reduced to 35% by the ld. CIT(A) on first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against the same before us. 3.5. It is not in dispute that these expenses are incurred by the assessee ... proceeded to make adhoc disallowances of 3% of the value thereon which was reduced to 2% by the ld. CIT(A) in first appeal. In respect of specific purchase disallowances made from six parties where 133(6) notice were not complied by them, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action

M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

business u/s.37(1) of the Act and allowed for remaining 50%. This 50% disallowance was reduced to 35% by the ld. CIT(A) on first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against the same before us. 3.5. It is not in dispute that these expenses are incurred by the assessee ... proceeded to make adhoc disallowances of 3% of the value thereon which was reduced to 2% by the ld. CIT(A) in first appeal. In respect of specific purchase disallowances made from six parties where 133(6) notice were not complied by them, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action

M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

business u/s.37(1) of the Act and allowed for remaining 50%. This 50% disallowance was reduced to 35% by the ld. CIT(A) on first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against the same before us. 3.5. It is not in dispute that these expenses are incurred by the assessee ... proceeded to make adhoc disallowances of 3% of the value thereon which was reduced to 2% by the ld. CIT(A) in first appeal. In respect of specific purchase disallowances made from six parties where 133(6) notice were not complied by them, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action

M/S Dev Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

business u/s.37(1) of the Act and allowed for remaining 50%. This 50% disallowance was reduced to 35% by the ld. CIT(A) on first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against the same before us. 3.5. It is not in dispute that these expenses are incurred by the assessee ... proceeded to make adhoc disallowances of 3% of the value thereon which was reduced to 2% by the ld. CIT(A) in first appeal. In respect of specific purchase disallowances made from six parties where 133(6) notice were not complied by them, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action

M/S Well Wisher Construction Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Ward 18 (1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

reference to 26AS statement. 5 I.T.A. No.7605 & 7606/Mum/2019 6. The assessee did not get any relief on the disputed amounts noted above, in the first appeal before CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders

Manav Gems, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm of Income Tax Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchases. The said profit element was estimated by the ld. AO at 5% which was reduced to 3% by the ld. CIT(A) on first appeal. Due to smallness of the amount, the assessee chose not to prefer further appeals to the Tribunal on the quantum proceedings. Penalty has been

Manav Gems, Mumbau vs. Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchases. The said profit element was estimated by the ld. AO at 5% which was reduced to 3% by the ld. CIT(A) on first appeal. Due to smallness of the amount, the assessee chose not to prefer further appeals to the Tribunal on the quantum proceedings. Penalty has been