THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

69B is not attracted. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and AO is directed to delete the addition. The ground No.1 is allowed. 9. The Ld. A.R. did not press ground No.2 and the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 10. The various grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: “1.Whether on the facts

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

69B is not attracted. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and AO is directed to delete the addition. The ground No.1 is allowed. 9. The Ld. A.R. did not press ground No.2 and the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 10. The various grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: “1.Whether on the facts

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

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

69B gets attracted because here it is not a case that the investment exceeds the amount recorded in the books of account. On these facts alone, the addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is deleted. In the result, the ground no. 4 is treated as allowed.” 5. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHAPURA HABITATS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito 2(1)(1), M/S. Ashapura Habitats P. Ltd., 1St Floor, Veetrag Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Room No.575, 5Th Floor, 46, C.P. Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaeca 7475L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2016 O R D E R

TDS. As per the said development agreement assessee has to pay Rs.25 Lacs 3 M/s. Ashapura Habitats P. Ltd. and allot 27% of the constructed premises to the owners. Such constructed premises includes 18 residential flats and 29 commercial shops. Subsequent to the said development agreement during the current financial year vide letter dt.15.3.2005, M/s. Darshan Enterprises have entered into

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS, etc. marked. It is relevant to note that the assessee firm has levied and paid Service tax @14.5% on the Consultancy charges or GST @ 18% and the payees have deducted tax at source @10% in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. All the persons are regularly assessed to income tax. ii) During the course of assessment proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS, etc. marked. It is relevant to note that the assessee firm has levied and paid Service tax @14.5% on the Consultancy charges or GST @ 18% and the payees have deducted tax at source @10% in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. All the persons are regularly assessed to income tax. ii) During the course of assessment proceedings

DY CIT CC 7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN GLOBAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

69B, read with section 256, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments - Assessment year 1994-95 - Whether amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales - Held, yes - During survey it was found that assessee had not disclosed certain sales in books of account - Whether Tribunal was justified in holding

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS made on such payments, but the AO failed to appreciate the facts and correctly. Thus, the addition made by the AO is de hors the materials on record. Therefore we do not find any merit in the arguments of ld DR that there was no proof of services being availed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake

SHARAD SEVANTILAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(6), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS.\nThe assessee further submitted that one more advance of Rs.1.61 crores was paid on\n14.08.2015 by the assessee and the balance amount of Rs.1 crore was sourced by\nthe assessee through Housing Loan from HDFC Bank. The assessee also submitted\nthat since the seller had some technical issues in getting the original documents\nfrom the Bank there was delay