ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

x (PV)/(PE), where, A = book value of all the assets (other than jewellery, artistic work, shares, securities and immovable property) in the balance-sheet as reduced by.- (1) any amount of income-tax paid, if any, less the amount of income-tax refund claimed, if any, and (ii) any amount shown as asset including the unamortised amount of deferred

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

56,27,043/- towards bogus purchases from three other parties, namely, Greenfield Overseas, Arihant International and Marque Global was brought to tax as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined at Rs. 4,32,95,82,203/- and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed vide order

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

56,27,043/- towards bogus purchases from three other parties, namely, Greenfield Overseas, Arihant International and Marque Global was brought to tax as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined at Rs. 4,32,95,82,203/- and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed vide order

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

56,58,546 44,66,235 14.2. Being aggrieved the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that all the information/documents to prove the genuineness of the purchase transaction were filed by the Appellant before the Assessing Officer. In respect of each of the purchases made, the Appellant had placed Copy

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELSPUN STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Purchase Agreement [in\nshort 'SPA'] dated 29.03.2017, WEPL sold the entire OCPS of Rs.686\ncrores (375 + 305.20 +5.40) held in WECL to SIPPL for an aggregate\nconsideration of Rs.300 crores. It is noted that, the sale consideration\nagreed upon was based on the valuation report obtained from a\nmerchant banker. Later on, in April/May 2019, WECL (which was\nnow owned

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

x) raised in Revenue’s appeal is allowed. 41. The issue arising in Ground No. (xi), raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). ITA No.5709, 5710, 5714/Mum/2024 & CO No.11, 12 & 13/Mum/2025 28 42. The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment

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 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 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DELUXE RECYCLING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56/2)|(x(b) of the Act as existed prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.202 1, the permissible variation was 5o und not 10% he decision of Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable. 2.1 Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: i. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in assessing the income

DELUXE RECYCLING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56/2)|(x(b) of the Act as existed prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.202 1, the permissible variation was 5o und not 10% he decision of Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable. 2.1 Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: i. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in assessing the income

ITO-13(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SETHIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

X of 1897) reads thus: "27. Meaning of service by post - Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service

KBJ DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and\nthat of Assessee is allowed, subject to verification, as directed\nabove in para no

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the\nDepartment is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in\naccordance with law, but the share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed\nincome u/sec. 68 of the Act\".\n35.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corporation\n(P.) Ltd. (supra) has also held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KBJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and\nthat of Assessee is allowed, subject to verification, as directed\nabove in para no

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the\nDepartment is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in\naccordance with law, but the share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed\nincome u/sec. 68 of the Act".\n35.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corporation\n(P.) Ltd. (supra) has also held