SUDHIR S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

unexplained investment on the\nbasis of details submitted on or before 01.03.1995 of contract\nnotes and bonus shares.\niii)\nPart Relief is allowed on account of Right issue after verification of\nthe basis of details provided by the assessee.\niv)\nIn the light of Supreme Court direction vide order dated\n13.02.2002 in Civil Appeal No. 7572 of 1999, in which

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN.CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SUDHIR SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

unexplained investment on the\nbasis of details submitted on or before 01.03.1995 of contract\nnotes and bonus shares.\niii)\nPart Relief is allowed on account of Right issue after verification of\nthe basis of details provided by the assessee.\niv)\nIn the light of Supreme Court direction vide order dated\n13.02.2002 in Civil Appeal No. 7572 of 1999, in which

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

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 ()

TDS upon interest of income and percentage of profit of said Firms for the more than 70% on the basis of which the assessments were carried out and additions were made. 11. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the search and seizure nothing incriminating material was found on 21.12.2006 and entire proceedings of the assessments are time barred

GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Growmore Leasing & Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 Investment Ltd. 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent M/S Growmore Leasing & Investment Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Dr. P. Daniel, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Vijay Mehta & Dharmesh Shah, Ars’ .. Date Of Hearing 01-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-11-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

unexplained by the AO. Such decision of the AO appears to be fair and reasonable and should not be questioned by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AG in this regard is upheld.” 13. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. From the facts of the case

DCIT CC 4(3) CEN RG 4, MUMBAI vs. GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Growmore Leasing & Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 Investment Ltd. 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent M/S Growmore Leasing & Investment Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Dr. P. Daniel, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Vijay Mehta & Dharmesh Shah, Ars’ .. Date Of Hearing 01-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-11-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

unexplained by the AO. Such decision of the AO appears to be fair and reasonable and should not be questioned by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AG in this regard is upheld.” 13. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. From the facts of the case

VINAY PARMANAND HARIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT), WARD-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Kempinski Private Residences Room No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Unit 40F Dki Jakarta, 10310 India Building, Nariman Point, Indonesia. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabph 4179 A Appellant Respondent

Unexplained investment in mutual fund namely investment in mutual fund namely investment in mutual fund namely Franklin Tempton of Rs.14,00,000/ Tempton of Rs.14,00,000/-, (5) Investment in Aditya Birla Sun Life of Rs.19,79,194/ in Aditya Birla Sun Life of Rs.19,79,194/ in Aditya Birla Sun Life of Rs.19,79,194/-, (6) Insurance premium paid

CHINMAY AGRICULTURAL HOUSING,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained investment u/s.69B in the sum of Rs.1,27,44,095/- in the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1a to 1c raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. The ground No.2 raised by the assessee is with regard to disallowance of expenditure of Rs.3,39,000/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 10 M/s. Chinmay Agricultural