KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

ASHUTOSH SINHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchase consideration paid by the assessee is liable to be taxed under the head ‘income from other sources.’. The ld. AO however, had also noted that as per the request of the assessee, reference was made to the DVO for the valuation of the property, however, the assessment was getting time barred on 31/03/2022 and the valuation report

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

56. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is covered by several\ndecisions of the coordinate benches in assessee's own case, and that is a fact\nnoted by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order itself as well. There is no\ngood reason, nor has any reason been pointed to us, to take a different view

SMT. PREMA MUKESH JHALANI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2) , THANE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

bogus or invalid in law. He has also not denied the fact that the actual transfer of shares took place during AY 2010-11. Therefore, the taxability, if at all arises then the same could have been taxed only in AY 2010-11. Therefore, Ld. A.O. is not correct in simply rejecting the claim of the appellant and thereafter making

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

56. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is covered by several\ndecisions of the coordinate benches in assessee's own case, and that is a fact\nnoted by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order itself as well. There is no\ngood reason, nor has any reason been pointed to us, to take a different view

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

vii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT-12, Mumbai vs Drisha Impex (India) Limited ITXA 1240 of 2018 has held that with regard to bogus purchases the Hon'ble Tribunal had erred

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

vii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT-12, Mumbai vs Drisha Impex (India) Limited ITXA 1240 of 2018 has held that with regard to bogus purchases the Hon'ble Tribunal had erred

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

vii) raised in Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 28. The issue arising in Ground No. (viii), raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the deletion of the addition made on account of the sale of property as reported in the ITS data. 29. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four