SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS reconciliation vis a vis its income. 3.1. A search and seizure operation as carried out at the premises of the assessee

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS reconciliation vis a vis its income. 3.1. A search and seizure operation as carried out at the premises of the assessee

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS reconciliation vis a vis its income. 3.1. A search and seizure operation as carried out at the premises of the assessee

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS reconciliation vis a vis its income. 3.1. A search and seizure operation as carried out at the premises of the assessee

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS reconciliation vis a vis its income. 3.1. A search and seizure operation as carried out at the premises of the assessee

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS reconciliation vis a vis its income. 3.1. A search and seizure operation as carried out at the premises of the assessee

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,TELAGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS reconciliation vis a vis its income. 3.1. A search and seizure operation as carried out at the premises of the assessee

SARANG & ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Ita Nos. 1227 To 1229/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2009-10) M/S Sarang & Associates, Dy. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ 302, Shabnam Apartment, Tax, Central Circle-36, 33, S.V. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaafs0638J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

Search and seizure proceedings conducted on Shri. Farooq Sarang, therefore, in the absence of establishing of any co-relation with the year under consideration, nor the contents thereof, the very assumption of jurisdiction and issue of notice under Sec. 153C of the Act, cannot be sustained. We thus are of the view that the validity of assumption of jurisdiction

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ) ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. (Formerly Cit(A)-50, Dcit Cen. 8(1), Known As Smartchem Technologies 656, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd.), Mumbai-400021. Survey No. 93, Sai Hira, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. Pan No. Aacca 5046 P Appellant Respondent

search & seizure carried out u/s 132 of the Act. e Act. 1(e) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in holding

ACIT CEN CIR 14, MUMBAI vs. SANGEET S. BARMECHA, GUJRAT

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

seizure. He has also disclosed investment of Rs. 1.5 crore in the money lending business and has paid taxes thereupon. The assessee has not retracted the said disclosure of Rs. 1.5 crore. Learned AR has explained each and every entry recorded on the impugned page No. 67 of the Annexure BS- 13 which may be reproduced as under

ACIT CEN CIR 14, MUMBAI vs. SURENDRA S. BARMECHA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

seizure. He has also disclosed investment of Rs. 1.5 crore in the money lending business and has paid taxes thereupon. The assessee has not retracted the said disclosure of Rs. 1.5 crore. Learned AR has explained each and every entry recorded on the impugned page No. 67 of the Annexure BS- 13 which may be reproduced as under

ASST CIT CEN CIR 14, MUMBAI vs. SURENDRA B. BARMECHA, GUJRAT

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

seizure. He has also disclosed investment of Rs. 1.5 crore in the money lending business and has paid taxes thereupon. The assessee has not retracted the said disclosure of Rs. 1.5 crore. Learned AR has explained each and every entry recorded on the impugned page No. 67 of the Annexure BS- 13 which may be reproduced as under

SURENDRA S. BARMECHA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 14, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

seizure. He has also disclosed investment of Rs. 1.5 crore in the money lending business and has paid taxes thereupon. The assessee has not retracted the said disclosure of Rs. 1.5 crore. Learned AR has explained each and every entry recorded on the impugned page No. 67 of the Annexure BS- 13 which may be reproduced as under

M/S.NEMINATH MUMBAI SHELTER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita No(S). 2554, 2885, 2952, 3526 & 3527/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year(S): 2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Neminath Mumbai Shelter Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai 101/102, Kalpak Apartment, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, Road No. 16, Sidharth Nagar, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 062

TDS deducted (by the builders) on the interest payable against their “Loans and Advances” is claimed as refund Thereafter, the A.O referring to the incriminating material/documents that were unearthed during the course of search proceedings conducted on Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his associates-cum-employees dwelled at length on the modus operandi that was adopted by them for providing accommodation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

search and seizure operation was carried out and for the period not covered within the block of six years, assessments were reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Thus, for A.Y. 2013-14, assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. 5. In course of assessment proceedings, from the materials on record, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

search and seizure operation was carried out and for the period not covered within the block of six years, assessments were reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Thus, for A.Y. 2013-14, assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. 5. In course of assessment proceedings, from the materials on record, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

search and seizure operation was carried out and for the period not covered within the block of six years, assessments were reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Thus, for A.Y. 2013-14, assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. 5. In course of assessment proceedings, from the materials on record, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

search and seizure operation was carried out and for the period not covered within the block of six years, assessments were reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Thus, for A.Y. 2013-14, assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. 5. In course of assessment proceedings, from the materials on record, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee