SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

undisclosed income before the date of the search. The\nassessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under\nsection 153A of the Act made variation in total income as compared\nto the original return of income filed. But detail of variation has not\nbeen mentioned by the AO in impugned assessment order. The AO\nhas simply stated

GANESH SRINIVASAN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeganesh Srinivasan Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income- 10, Fair Field, 112, Road No.4, Tax-8, Mumbai Room No.611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aagps5047M Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

undisclosed professional income. 3. The Ld PCIT-8 erred in not following the judgement passed by both the ITAT as well as the Bombay High Court which has clearly held in Appellants own case that no addition could be made to the appellant assessable income on the grounds of non-reconciliation of TDS

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

undisclosed income before the date of the search. The\nassessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under\nsection 153A of the Act made variation in total income as compared\nto the original return of income filed. But detail of variation has not\nbeen mentioned by the AO in impugned assessment order. The AO\nhas simply stated

PRIYANKA CHOPRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4601/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ms. Priyanka Chopra Dy. Cit, Central Circle – 3, बनाम/ 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, B-Wing, Mumbai Vs. Versova, Mumbai-400 061 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acxpc 1741 R (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4565/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Central Circle – 3, Ms. Priyanka Chopra बनाम/ Mumbai 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, Vs. B-Wing, Versova, Mumbai-400 061 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acxpc 1741 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4569/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Central Circle – 3, Mrs. Madhu Ashok Chopra बनाम/ Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building 705, 706 & 806, Raj Classic, Annex, M. K. Road, B-Wing, Versova, Mumbai-400 061 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acepc 5502 F (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Naresh Kumar Assessee By : Shri B. Srinivas Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S. Since The Issues Are Common & Connected & The Appeals Were Heard Together These Are Being Consolidated

undisclosed income in respect of rent received in cash from Shivani Oil and Gas Exploration: 4.1 On this issue the assessing officer made the addition by observing as under: On verification of the Annexure A-l page no, 127 of the loose papers seized from Navkaran Office on 21-03-2011, it is seen that the assessee was charging

VRUSHALI SANJAY SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevrushali Sanjay Shinde V. Dcit, Central Circle-1 282, Boundary Road B-101, Marigold, Prestige Residency G.B. Road, Kavesar, Thane- 400607 Civil Line, Meerut - 250001 Pan: Ajnps5211K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sankalp Malik Department Represented By : Shri Shanti Subramanian

TDS on the commission had also not be claimed in the ROI The appellant has also stated that she accept the addition of Rs.1,05,212/- to her income. Vide her rejoinder filed on 16/3/2020, the appellant has further stated that she accept the addition and give consent to add the same in the total income of the assessee

M/S SINNAR THERMAL POWER LTD(FORMERLY RATTANINDIA NASIK POWER LTD) ,DELHI vs. DY CIT CC 6 (4) , MUMBAI

undisclosed income unearthed during search and if there is any other income which is not the subject matter of search, the same cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, the revisional authority can exercise the power under Section 263. In the entire scheme of 153A of the Act, there is no prohibition for the assessing authority to take note of such

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 ()

undisclosed income for assessment years 2010 2010-11 to 2015-16. The assessee filed return of 16. The assessee filed return of income in respect of assessment years involved before us declaring income in respect of assessment years involved before us declaring income in respect of assessment years involved before us declaring total income as under: total income as under

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 ()

undisclosed income for assessment years 2010 2010-11 to 2015-16. The assessee filed return of 16. The assessee filed return of income in respect of assessment years involved before us declaring income in respect of assessment years involved before us declaring income in respect of assessment years involved before us declaring total income as under: total income as under

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

undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of evidence and material found during search. The statement recorded evidence and material found during search. The statement recorded evidence and material

SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () Shashi Kiran Shetty Vs Acit, Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aavashya House Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 098 Pan : Ameps5601B Appellant Respondednt

Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure action u/s 132(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 was carried out in All Cargo group of companies on 10-07- 2009. The assessee is one of the constituent individuals of the group. During the course of search, a document was seized which related

DCIT - 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

income pertaining to the impugned TDS amount. The Assessing Officer then made an addition of Rs.7,83,76,440/- as undisclosed

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CEN-CIRCLE 6(2). MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

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

undisclosed income‟ or whether particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search and seizure. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and consider that the case of the Appellant is the unabated assessment and nothing incriminating material was found during the said operation 21.12.2006, since the regular assessment of the Appellant

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

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

undisclosed income‟ or whether particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search and seizure. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and consider that the case of the Appellant is the unabated assessment and nothing incriminating material was found during the said operation 21.12.2006, since the regular assessment of the Appellant

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

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

undisclosed income‟ or whether particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search and seizure. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and consider that the case of the Appellant is the unabated assessment and nothing incriminating material was found during the said operation 21.12.2006, since the regular assessment of the Appellant

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

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

undisclosed income‟ or whether particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search and seizure. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and consider that the case of the Appellant is the unabated assessment and nothing incriminating material was found during the said operation 21.12.2006, since the regular assessment of the Appellant

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

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

undisclosed income‟ or whether particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search and seizure. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and consider that the case of the Appellant is the unabated assessment and nothing incriminating material was found during the said operation 21.12.2006, since the regular assessment of the Appellant

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

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

undisclosed income‟ or whether particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search and seizure. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and consider that the case of the Appellant is the unabated assessment and nothing incriminating material was found during the said operation 21.12.2006, since the regular assessment of the Appellant

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

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

undisclosed income‟ or whether particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search and seizure. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and consider that the case of the Appellant is the unabated assessment and nothing incriminating material was found during the said operation 21.12.2006, since the regular assessment of the Appellant

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI. vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

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

undisclosed income‟ or whether particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search and seizure. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and consider that the case of the Appellant is the unabated assessment and nothing incriminating material was found during the said operation 21.12.2006, since the regular assessment of the Appellant