SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

153D of the Act, if necessary, the AO is\nnot required to seek any approval from the specified authority,\nas required under Section 148/151 of the Act for issuing a\nnotice under Section 153C of the Act and can proceed to assess\n/ reassess income for the concerned assessment years.\n\n60.\nHowever, if the AO does not take recourse

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

153D of the Act, if necessary, the AO is\nnot required to seek any approval from the specified authority,\nas required under Section 148/151 of the Act for issuing a\nnotice under Section 153C of the Act and can proceed to assess\n/ reassess income for the concerned assessment years.\n60.\nHowever, if the AO does not take recourse

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

153D of the Act. The Approving Authority\nafter submitting the draft order and relevant material, is required to\nassess the proposed assessment order independently in the context\nof material available on record and to give reasons for granting the\napproval. Admittedly in this case, approval dated 27.12.2019, does\nnot reflect any relevant material/findings/reasoning, which can\nsubstantiate the validity of such

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

capital gain and iii. Addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan. AY 2010-11 09. ITA number 715/M/2021 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals – 53, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. By this Appellate order

ASHOK VIRAMBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC - 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 153D of Income Tax Act, 1961 and such assessment is erroneous on facts and bad in law and liable to be annulled/quashed. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the Order of Assessing Officer of making addition of Rs.1,67,69,307/- on account of Long Term

ASHOK VIRAMBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC - 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 153D of Income Tax Act, 1961 and such assessment is erroneous on facts and bad in law and liable to be annulled/quashed. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the Order of Assessing Officer of making addition of Rs.1,67,69,307/- on account of Long Term

PRAKASH GEMS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 153D of Income Tax Act, 1961 and such assessment is erroneous on facts and bad in law and liable to be annulled/quashed. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the Order of Assessing Officer of making addition of Rs.1,67,69,307/- on account of Long Term

ALKESH PATEL (PROP. OF M/S UMIYA GEMS),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 153D of Income Tax Act, 1961 and such assessment is erroneous on facts and bad in law and liable to be annulled/quashed. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the Order of Assessing Officer of making addition of Rs.1,67,69,307/- on account of Long Term

ASHOK VIRAMBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 5 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 153D of Income Tax Act, 1961 and such assessment is erroneous on facts and bad in law and liable to be annulled/quashed. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the Order of Assessing Officer of making addition of Rs.1,67,69,307/- on account of Long Term

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into