KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

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

153A /153C without reference to incriminating seized material has also been expounded by honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Singhad technical education Society in civil appeal No. 11080 of 2017 and others. In this regard the honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the said order observed that: In this behalf it was noted

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

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

153A /153C without reference to incriminating seized material has also been expounded by honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Singhad technical education Society in civil appeal No. 11080 of 2017 and others. In this regard the honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the said order observed that: In this behalf it was noted

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4), CENTRAL CIRCLE,, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

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

153A /153C without reference to incriminating seized material has also been expounded by honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Singhad technical education Society in civil appeal No. 11080 of 2017 and others. In this regard the honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the said order observed that: In this behalf it was noted

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

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

153A /153C without reference to incriminating seized material has also been expounded by honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Singhad technical education Society in civil appeal No. 11080 of 2017 and others. In this regard the honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the said order observed that: In this behalf it was noted

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES, ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

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

153A /153C without reference to incriminating seized material has also been expounded by honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Singhad technical education Society in civil appeal No. 11080 of 2017 and others. In this regard the honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the said order observed that: In this behalf it was noted

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

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

153A /153C without reference to incriminating seized material has also been expounded by honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Singhad technical education Society in civil appeal No. 11080 of 2017 and others. In this regard the honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the said order observed that: In this behalf it was noted

ACIT-CC-1(3), MUMBAI vs. BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS , NAVI MUMBAI

In the result ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal for assessment year 2015 – 16 of the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2012-13 A.Y.2015-16 Acit-Central Circle-1(3), Bhagwati Developers, Mumbai 1306, 13Th Floor, Vs. Real Tech Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A, Vashi Navi Mumbai Co No. 80/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 [Ita No. 1346/Mum/2024] Bhagwati Developers, Acit-Central Circle-1(3), 1306, 13Th Floor, Mumbai Real Tech Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A, Vashi Navi Mumbai Pan Aalfb 5272C A.Y. 2012-13 Acit-Central Circle-1(3), Ms. Shanti Enterprises, Mumbai Office No. 1306, Real Tech Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A Vashi Co No. 110/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 [Ita No. 1349/Mum/2024] Ms. Shanti Enterprises, Acit-Central Circle-1(3), Office No. 1306, Real Tech Mumbai Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A Vashi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain

153A of the act as there is no asset defined in explanation 2 of that section represents the undisclosed income.Therefore, reversing the order of the learned CIT – A on this point, the assessment order was quashed, and ground number 1 was allowed. 40. For completeness of the appeal, ground number 2 of cross objection and solitary ground of appeal

ACIT-CC-1(3), NEW MARINE LINES, CHURCHGATE vs. MS. SHANTI ENTERPRISES, VASHI

In the result ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal for assessment year 2015 – 16 of the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2012-13 A.Y.2015-16 Acit-Central Circle-1(3), Bhagwati Developers, Mumbai 1306, 13Th Floor, Vs. Real Tech Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A, Vashi Navi Mumbai Co No. 80/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 [Ita No. 1346/Mum/2024] Bhagwati Developers, Acit-Central Circle-1(3), 1306, 13Th Floor, Mumbai Real Tech Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A, Vashi Navi Mumbai Pan Aalfb 5272C A.Y. 2012-13 Acit-Central Circle-1(3), Ms. Shanti Enterprises, Mumbai Office No. 1306, Real Tech Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A Vashi Co No. 110/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 [Ita No. 1349/Mum/2024] Ms. Shanti Enterprises, Acit-Central Circle-1(3), Office No. 1306, Real Tech Mumbai Park, Plot No.39/2, Sector-30A Vashi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain

153A of the act as there is no asset defined in explanation 2 of that section represents the undisclosed income.Therefore, reversing the order of the learned CIT – A on this point, the assessment order was quashed, and ground number 1 was allowed. 40. For completeness of the appeal, ground number 2 of cross objection and solitary ground of appeal

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

TDS u/s.201(1A) or u/s.206C(7) of the delayed payment of TDS u/s.201(1A) or u/s.206C(7) of the delayed payment of TDS u/s.201(1A) or u/s.206C(7) of the Act has been shown of Rs. 2,42,966/ Act has been shown of Rs. 2,42,966/-. In this regard, the . In this regard, the assessee was required

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

153A had claimed that its closing stock as appearing in P&L Account was overvalued of Rs.60 crores. Therefore, it has claimed reduction to that extent. The AO added back the amount of Rs.60 crores as the assessee has not justified its claim. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted addition made by the AO because, he had estimated profit from the business

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

153A had claimed that its closing stock as appearing in P&L Account was overvalued of Rs.60 crores. Therefore, it has claimed reduction to that extent. The AO added back the amount of Rs.60 crores as the assessee has not justified its claim. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted addition made by the AO because, he had estimated profit from the business

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

section erred in initiating proceedings and passing an order under sec 153A of the Act without appreciating the fact that neither there was 153A of the Act without appreciating the fact that neither there was 153A of the Act without appreciating the fact that neither there was any incriminating material found during search nor was there any any incriminating material

KAMLA LANDMARC PROPERTIES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1072, 1071, 1070, 4469, 4471 & 1073/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Properties बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aahfk1108L (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 23.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2012-13 To A.Y. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, we hold that except AYs2013-14 & 2014-15, all the other AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010- 11 & 2012-13 were unabated assessments. 3. Since the issues raised and the additions involved in all the appeals are similar, we first take up the appeal filed by the assessee

KAMLA LANDMARC PROPERTIES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1072, 1071, 1070, 4469, 4471 & 1073/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Properties बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aahfk1108L (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 23.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2012-13 To A.Y. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, we hold that except AYs2013-14 & 2014-15, all the other AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010- 11 & 2012-13 were unabated assessments. 3. Since the issues raised and the additions involved in all the appeals are similar, we first take up the appeal filed by the assessee

KAMLA LANDMARC PROPERTIES, MUMBAI vs. DCIT (3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1072, 1071, 1070, 4469, 4471 & 1073/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Properties बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aahfk1108L (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 23.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2012-13 To A.Y. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, we hold that except AYs2013-14 & 2014-15, all the other AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010- 11 & 2012-13 were unabated assessments. 3. Since the issues raised and the additions involved in all the appeals are similar, we first take up the appeal filed by the assessee

KAMLA LANDMARC PROPERTIES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1072, 1071, 1070, 4469, 4471 & 1073/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Properties बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aahfk1108L (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 23.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2012-13 To A.Y. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, we hold that except AYs2013-14 & 2014-15, all the other AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010- 11 & 2012-13 were unabated assessments. 3. Since the issues raised and the additions involved in all the appeals are similar, we first take up the appeal filed by the assessee

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

TDS is claimed as refund. That same IP address in filing of return of income and common postal address. Thereafter she referred to the distinction of case laws. 16. Thereafter she considered provisions of section 68 of the Act and finally dismissed the assessee’s appeal in this regard. Thereafter she noted that ground relating to disallowance under section

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

TDS is claimed as refund. That same IP address in filing of return of income and common postal address. Thereafter she referred to the distinction of case laws. 16. Thereafter she considered provisions of section 68 of the Act and finally dismissed the assessee’s appeal in this regard. Thereafter she noted that ground relating to disallowance under section