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

1) and thereafter a regular assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 22.10.2019 by Central Circle- 2(2), Mumbai, determining income at Rs. 19,370/-.\n3. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice under section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 08.11.2022, again declaring income of Rs. 19,370/-. Notice under

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

purchase and sale of shares were genuine transactions. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in alleging that the Appellant has indulged in bogus transactions by indulging in penny stock shares of M/s. ACI Infocom although the same had been done on the floor of the stock exchange. 9. That

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

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

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

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

148A(d) and notice issued u/s 148 after 29.03.2022 by the Ld.\nJurisdictional A.O. which is invalid as the same is contrary to the\nprovisions contained in the section 151A of the Act read with notification\nissued on 29.03.2022 regarding e-Assessment of Income Escaping\nAssessment Scheme, 2022.\n6. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case

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

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

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

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

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

MARK FOODS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

bogus purchase as unexplained money under section 69A merely on surmises, conjecture and suspicion.” 3. We first take up appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 for which brief facts are that assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2015, reporting total income at Rs.2,04,070/- which was processed u/s 143(1). Case of the assessee was re-opened by issuing

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

M/S. UNITED INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO. WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

section 148A(1)(a) and 148A(1)(b) of the Act. (4) On the facts and circumstances and in law the impugned reassessment proceeding is bad-in-law.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a partnership firm and had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice