“rule 46A”

ITO 23 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sandhya Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and C

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale&

assessment order". On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in violating Rule 46A of the IT. Rules by not furnishing the Development Agreement dt 10.10 2006, 06.11.2006 & 10.05.2011 during remand proceedings thereby erred in deleting the addition

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Keepak Kamboj, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences in contravention to rule 46A of the I.T Rules holding that the assessee was proven sufficient cause to furnish the details without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences without considering the objections raised by the AO Rule 46A of the I.T Rules. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

ACIT Cir-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences in contravention to rule 46A of the I.T Rules holding that the assessee was proven sufficient cause to furnish the details without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences without considering the objections raised by the AO Rule 46A of the I.T Rules. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences in contravention to rule 46A of the I.T Rules holding that the assessee was proven sufficient cause to furnish the details without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences without considering the objections raised by the AO Rule 46A of the I.T Rules. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

DCIT- 32(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Glitter Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenues allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-32(1), M/S Glitter Jewels, Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya 120/B, Mandpeshwar Ind. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Estate, Opp. Prem Nagar, Bandra (East), Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaafg 5495 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Kiran Mehta & Ravi Dasija, Ars Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

without following due process of law provided in without following due process of law provided in without following due process of law provided in Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962. , 1962. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation

Alta Leasing & Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle 6 (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

additional evidence by way of accepting the documents in respect of the asset such as bill, delivery challans, transport receipts etc. in contravention of Rule 46A of 1T Rules, 1962 6 Appeals 3 Alta Leasing & Finance Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1) 5. On the facts and in the circumstances ... erred in entertaining additional evidence by accepting evidence in support of transportation of the assets in contravention of Rule 46A of I.T Rules, 1962. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.19

DCIT, Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Alta Leasing & Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

additional evidence by way of accepting the documents in respect of the asset such as bill, delivery challans, transport receipts etc. in contravention of Rule 46A of 1T Rules, 1962 6 Appeals 3 Alta Leasing & Finance Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1) 5. On the facts and in the circumstances ... erred in entertaining additional evidence by accepting evidence in support of transportation of the assets in contravention of Rule 46A of I.T Rules, 1962. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.19

DCIT.Cir.6 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Alta Leasing & Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

additional evidence by way of accepting the documents in respect of the asset such as bill, delivery challans, transport receipts etc. in contravention of Rule 46A of 1T Rules, 1962 6 Appeals 3 Alta Leasing & Finance Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1) 5. On the facts and in the circumstances ... erred in entertaining additional evidence by accepting evidence in support of transportation of the assets in contravention of Rule 46A of I.T Rules, 1962. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.19

Alta Leasing & Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl, CIT Cent. Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

additional evidence by way of accepting the documents in respect of the asset such as bill, delivery challans, transport receipts etc. in contravention of Rule 46A of 1T Rules, 1962 6 Appeals 3 Alta Leasing & Finance Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1) 5. On the facts and in the circumstances ... erred in entertaining additional evidence by accepting evidence in support of transportation of the assets in contravention of Rule 46A of I.T Rules, 1962. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.19

Alta Leasing & Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT Spl RG 17, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

additional evidence by way of accepting the documents in respect of the asset such as bill, delivery challans, transport receipts etc. in contravention of Rule 46A of 1T Rules, 1962 6 Appeals 3 Alta Leasing & Finance Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1) 5. On the facts and in the circumstances ... erred in entertaining additional evidence by accepting evidence in support of transportation of the assets in contravention of Rule 46A of I.T Rules, 1962. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.19

The Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

learned Assessing Officer) against the same order raising following grounds of appeal:- “(1) Whether the Ld. CITIA) erred in admitting additional evidence under rule 46A despite the fact Whether the repeated opportunities were given to the assessee by the AO and he was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing ... TAXMAN 106 that additional evidence can be produced at first Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd appellate stage only when conditions stipulated in rule 46A are satisfied. (3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,03,96,000/ u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account

ACIT Central Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

learned Assessing Officer) against the same order raising following grounds of appeal:- “(1) Whether the Ld. CITIA) erred in admitting additional evidence under rule 46A despite the fact Whether the repeated opportunities were given to the assessee by the AO and he was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing ... TAXMAN 106 that additional evidence can be produced at first Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd appellate stage only when conditions stipulated in rule 46A are satisfied. (3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,03,96,000/ u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account

M/S Wadhwa Construction and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

learned Assessing Officer) against the same order raising following grounds of appeal:- “(1) Whether the Ld. CITIA) erred in admitting additional evidence under rule 46A despite the fact Whether the repeated opportunities were given to the assessee by the AO and he was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing ... TAXMAN 106 that additional evidence can be produced at first Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd appellate stage only when conditions stipulated in rule 46A are satisfied. (3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,03,96,000/ u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account

M/S Wadhwa Construction and Infrastruction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

learned Assessing Officer) against the same order raising following grounds of appeal:- “(1) Whether the Ld. CITIA) erred in admitting additional evidence under rule 46A despite the fact Whether the repeated opportunities were given to the assessee by the AO and he was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing ... TAXMAN 106 that additional evidence can be produced at first Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd appellate stage only when conditions stipulated in rule 46A are satisfied. (3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,03,96,000/ u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

learned Assessing Officer) against the same order raising following grounds of appeal:- “(1) Whether the Ld. CITIA) erred in admitting additional evidence under rule 46A despite the fact Whether the repeated opportunities were given to the assessee by the AO and he was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing ... TAXMAN 106 that additional evidence can be produced at first Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd appellate stage only when conditions stipulated in rule 46A are satisfied. (3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,03,96,000/ u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account

Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Cit (A)-26 Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian R.No.331, 3Rd Floor, 406, Vardhaman Market Tower No.6 Sector 17, Vashi, Vashi Station Complex Vs. Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahzps4849K Assessee By : Shri Nm Porwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ujjawal Chavan, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022

additional evidence in the form of possession letter for which no application for Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian; A.Y. 07-08 admission has been made under Rule 46A of the Act. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 010. Therefore, aggrieved with that order, assessee is in appeal before ... however, he rejected the same stating that this is additional evidence filed by the assessee and same is not in conformity with the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We find that Rule 46A, does not mandate compulsorily by making return application for admission of additional evidence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33(1), Mumbai vs. Alf Engineering Company, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

impugned orders is not based upon any evidence, and even no remand report was sought from the Id. Assessing Officer which is violation of rule 46A of the Rules. Even before under section, the Ld counsel for the assessee fairly explained that no question was asked by the Assessing Officer