MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

153C(1) itself. The same is as under: "[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151, section 153, where the assessing officer is satisfied that.- A) Any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or B) Any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned pertains

ALPS CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member)

153C(1) itself. The same is as under: "[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151, section 153, where the assessing officer is satisfied that.- A) Any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or B) Any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned pertains

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14 In result, the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

153C(1) itself.\nThe same is as under:\n\"[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151, section 153, where the\nassessing officer is satisfied that.-\nA) Any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\nB) Any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned\npertains

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14\nIn result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

153C(1) itself. The\nsame is as under:\n\"[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151, section 153, where the\nassessing officer is satisfied that.-\nA) Any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\nB) Any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned\npertains

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14 In result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/MUM/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistica...

153C(1) itself. The\nsame is as under:\n\"[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151, section 153, where the\nassessing officer is satisfied that.-\nА) Any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\nB) Any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned\npertains

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14\nIn result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

153C(1) itself. The\nsame is as under:\n\"[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151, section 153, where the\nassessing officer is satisfied that.-\nA) Апу топey, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\nB) Any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned\npertains

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

section 148 of the Act. 3.1 Thereafter, consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the Act consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the at the premises of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. at the premises of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. at the premises

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

section 148 of the Act. 3.1 Thereafter, consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the Act consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the at the premises of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. at the premises of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. at the premises

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

section 148 of the Act. 3.1 Thereafter, consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the Act consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the at the premises of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. at the premises of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. at the premises

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

153C dated 27.12.2017 assessed the unexplained cash expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for assessment unexplained cash expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for assessment unexplained cash expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014 13 to 2014-15 as under: Particulars Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs) (a) Unexplained cash expenditure

SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

153C dated 27.12.2017 assessed the unexplained cash expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for assessment unexplained cash expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for assessment unexplained cash expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014 13 to 2014-15 as under: Particulars Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs) (a) Unexplained cash expenditure

KARAN VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri. Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

153C without satisfaction note is violation of statute and void ab-initio as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC)held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that the recording of the satisfaction note is an essential requirement for invoking Section 158BD, and its absence renders

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAX) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS on the said remittances. Taking a leaf\nout of this information, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee\nhas not shown this income in its return of income as taxable and\nformed a belief that income of Rs.91,08,957/-, had escaped assessment\nand issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29/06/2021. Drawing support\nfrom

BIPIN DAHYALAL SAVLA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Amarjit Singh

153C was required to be initiated. 16. So we are of the considered view that when the assessment in this case has been framed on the basis of search conducted at the premises of assessee himself wherein no incriminating material was found/seized rather the entire evidence discussed in this case was seized in the case of search on the third

BIPIN DAHYALAL SAVLA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Amarjit Singh

153C was required to be initiated. 16. So we are of the considered view that when the assessment in this case has been framed on the basis of search conducted at the premises of assessee himself wherein no incriminating material was found/seized rather the entire evidence discussed in this case was seized in the case of search on the third

BIPIN DAHYALAL SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Amarjit Singh

153C was required to be initiated. 16. So we are of the considered view that when the assessment in this case has been framed on the basis of search conducted at the premises of assessee himself wherein no incriminating material was found/seized rather the entire evidence discussed in this case was seized in the case of search on the third

BIPIN DAHYALAL SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Amarjit Singh

153C was required to be initiated. 16. So we are of the considered view that when the assessment in this case has been framed on the basis of search conducted at the premises of assessee himself wherein no incriminating material was found/seized rather the entire evidence discussed in this case was seized in the case of search on the third

BIPIN DAHYALAL SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Amarjit Singh

153C was required to be initiated. 16. So we are of the considered view that when the assessment in this case has been framed on the basis of search conducted at the premises of assessee himself wherein no incriminating material was found/seized rather the entire evidence discussed in this case was seized in the case of search on the third