RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

148A read with section 149/151. The approval of specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file reply to obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

148A read with section 149/151. The approval of specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file reply to obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

148A(b) had been issued merely relying on the information received from had been issued merely relying on the information received from had been issued merely relying on the information received from the JCIT(OSD) the JCIT(OSD)- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai. In this regard, it is Mumbai. In this regard, it is submitted that reassessment is valid

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

148A read with section 149/151. The approval of\nspecified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was\nobtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file reply to\nthe notice and hence the notice issued on 20-3-2022 through\nspeed post at the address given on the PAN Database was\nsufficient to return a finding that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

148A read with section 149/151. The approval of\nspecified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was\nobtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file reply to\nthe notice and hence the notice issued on 20-3-2022 through\nspeed post at the address given on the PAN Database was\nsufficient to return a finding that

ACIT-15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURYA FERROUS ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus expenses to deflate the profit thereby the profit thereby evading income tax. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cause and in law the order of Ld.CIT(A) is not bad in law in not realizing that the gods purchased by the assessee in cash through grey market invokes provisions of section 40A(3), hence the assessee

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

bogus penny stock transactions aggregating to Rs. 38,15,945/-, andsearch action in the case of Shri Naresh Jain allegedly revealed that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries aggregating to Rs. 20,04,080/-.\n6. According to the PCIT, the reassessment order dated 28.02.2023 did not reflect any enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer into the tax implications

IMPRESSIVE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

148A(d) and notice issued u/s 148 after 29.03.2022 by the Ld. Jurisdictional A.O. which is invalid as the same is contrary to the provisions contained in the section 151A of the Act read with notification issued on 29.03.2022 regarding e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 6. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case

IMPRESSIVE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

148A(d) and notice issued u/s 148 after 29.03.2022 by the Ld. Jurisdictional A.O. which is invalid as the same is contrary to the provisions contained in the section 151A of the Act read with notification issued on 29.03.2022 regarding e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 6. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case

RAJ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

purchases in relation to siphoning of loans and money. 8. Under the facts and in law, the learned CII(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 150,09,34,430/- to the income of appellant u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 9. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition

RAJ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

purchases in relation to siphoning of loans and money. 8. Under the facts and in law, the learned CII(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 150,09,34,430/- to the income of appellant u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 9. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition

IMPRESSIVE TRADING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

bogus accommodation entry activities to facilitate fake sales and purchases.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the consequential assessment orders were barred by limitation, as they were issued beyond the \"surviving period\" as defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the notices and subsequent

SKA SALES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICSR, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

Section 68 of the Act in respect of alleged\nbogus purchases to INR.40,81,250/- (12.5% of bogus purchases)\nand deleted the balance addition of INR.2,85,68,750/- The Learned\nCIT(A) also deleted the addition of INR.6,07,605/- made under\nSection 69C of the Act.\n4.\nBeing aggrieved by the above relief granted by the Learned

ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SKA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases) and deleted the balance addition of INR.2,85,68,750/- The Learned CIT(A) also deleted the addition of INR.6,07,605/- made under Section 69C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the Learned CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. Not being satisfied with the relief granted

SHAIRUL IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1)), MUMBAI

148A or the period\nduring which the proceeding under section\n148A is stayed by an order injunction of any\ncourt, shall be excluded: or\nProvided also that where immediately after the\nexclusion of the period referred to in the\nimmediately preceding proviso, the period of\nlimitation available to the Assessing Officer for\npassing an order under clause (d) of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. CEC-ITD CEM-TPL JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148A(b) of the Act before passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act (point (xi)). 12. Therefore, the order passed u/s. 148A (d) of the Act in case of an assessee is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. IV. Proposition 3. The AO has raised fresh issues and referred to new material in the order

CEC- ITD CEM TPL JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148A(b) of the Act before passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act (point (xi)). 12. Therefore, the order passed u/s. 148A (d) of the Act in case of an assessee is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. IV. Proposition 3. The AO has raised fresh issues and referred to new material in the order

CEC- ITD CEM TPL JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148A(b) of the Act before passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act (point (xi)). 12. Therefore, the order passed u/s. 148A (d) of the Act in case of an assessee is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. IV. Proposition 3. The AO has raised fresh issues and referred to new material in the order