MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

153D of the Act and hence, the entire assessment proceedings is bad in law and thus, the assessment order needs to be quashed. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in addition of Rs.44,39,566 under section 68 of the Act, holding the sale proceeds of Splash Media & Infra Limited

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

153D of the Act and hence, the entire assessment proceedings is bad in law and thus, the assessment order needs to be quashed. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in addition of Rs.44,39,566 under section 68 of the Act, holding the sale proceeds of Splash Media & Infra Limited

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

153D of the Act and hence, the entire assessment proceedings is bad in law and thus, the assessment order needs to be quashed. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in addition of Rs.44,39,566 under section 68 of the Act, holding the sale proceeds of Splash Media & Infra Limited

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

153D of the Act and hence, the entire assessment proceedings is bad in law and thus, the assessment order needs to be quashed. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in addition of Rs.44,39,566 under section 68 of the Act, holding the sale proceeds of Splash Media & Infra Limited

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 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 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 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

M/S. SIMTOOLS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3) ( EARSTWHILE DCIT- CENT. CIR-42), MUMBAI

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 7(3), M/S Simtools Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai (Erstwhile Dcit- 412, Floor-4, 17G, Central Circle – 42) Vardhaman Chamber, Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Cawasji Patel Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1757M Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2022

153D of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 10,89,14,692/- as business income and enhancing the same to Rs.11,11,62,469/-. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4), CENTRAL CIRCLE,, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

153D of the Act, no addition could be made and the proceedings under section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated by the AO. 3. The Appellant prays that the Order of the CIT(A) confirming proceedings initiated by the AO under section 153A of the Act be set aside, quashed and be held as bad in law and/or

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES, ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

153D of the Act, no addition could be made and the proceedings under section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated by the AO. 3. The Appellant prays that the Order of the CIT(A) confirming proceedings initiated by the AO under section 153A of the Act be set aside, quashed and be held as bad in law and/or

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

153D of the Act, no addition could be made and the proceedings under section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated by the AO. 3. The Appellant prays that the Order of the CIT(A) confirming proceedings initiated by the AO under section 153A of the Act be set aside, quashed and be held as bad in law and/or

KAMLA LAMDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

153D of the Act, no addition could be made and the proceedings under section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated by the AO. 3. The Appellant prays that the Order of the CIT(A) confirming proceedings initiated by the AO under section 153A of the Act be set aside, quashed and be held as bad in law and/or

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

153D of the Act, no addition could be made and the proceedings under section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated by the AO. 3. The Appellant prays that the Order of the CIT(A) confirming proceedings initiated by the AO under section 153A of the Act be set aside, quashed and be held as bad in law and/or

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

153D of the Act, no addition could be made and the proceedings under section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated by the AO. 3. The Appellant prays that the Order of the CIT(A) confirming proceedings initiated by the AO under section 153A of the Act be set aside, quashed and be held as bad in law and/or

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

153D of the Act, no addition could be made and the proceedings under section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated by the AO. 3. The Appellant prays that the Order of the CIT(A) confirming proceedings initiated by the AO under section 153A of the Act be set aside, quashed and be held as bad in law and/or

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