DCIT, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. SATISH JAGANNATH AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

158B-I the various provisions of Chapter XIV-B are made inapplicable to proceedings under section 153A/153C The effect of this is that while the provisions of Chapter XIV-B limit the inquiry by the Assessing Officer to those materials found during the search and seizure operation, no such P a g e | 2 DCIT, CC-6(3) Vs. Satish

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gain. In this whole process Shri Naresh jain played a very crucial role by interlinking the beneficiaries, brokers, intermediaries and exit providers for which he charged a specific commission. The appellant himself has stated to have earned 3% commission for circular trading of various scripts on the stock exchange 8.5 Hence, I am of the considered view that

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gain. In this whole process Shri Naresh jain played a very crucial role by interlinking the beneficiaries, brokers, intermediaries and exit providers for which he charged a specific commission. The appellant himself has stated to have earned 3% commission for circular trading of various scripts on the stock exchange 8.5 Hence, I am of the considered view that

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gain. In this whole process Shri Naresh jain played a very crucial role by interlinking the beneficiaries, brokers, intermediaries and exit providers for which he charged a specific commission. The appellant himself has stated to have earned 3% commission for circular trading of various scripts on the stock exchange 8.5 Hence, I am of the considered view that

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gain. In this whole process Shri Naresh jain played a very crucial role by interlinking the beneficiaries, brokers, intermediaries and exit providers for which he charged a specific commission. The appellant himself has stated to have earned 3% commission for circular trading of various scripts on the stock exchange 8.5 Hence, I am of the considered view that

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gain. In this whole process Shri Naresh jain played a very crucial role by interlinking the beneficiaries, brokers, intermediaries and exit providers for which he charged a specific commission. The appellant himself has stated to have earned 3% commission for circular trading of various scripts on the stock exchange 8.5 Hence, I am of the considered view that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed as well as Cross Objections of the assessee are\ndismissed as infructuous

158B(1) of the Act which\nexpressly restricts the computation of undisclosed income to the\nevidence found during search, the statement recorded under\nSection 132(4) of the Act can form a basis for a block assessment\nonly if such statement relates to any incriminating evidence of\nundisclosed income unearthed during search and cannot be the\nsole basis for making

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI

capital gain. In this whole process Shri Naresh jain\nplayed a very crucial role by interlinking the beneficiaries,\nbrokers, intermediaries and exit providers for which he\ncharged a specific commission. The appellant himself has\nstated to have earned 3% commission for circular trading of\nvarious scripts on the stock exchange\n8.5 Hence, I am of the considered view that

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4),MUMBAI., PRATISHTHA BHAVAN, MUMBAI. vs. ARUN SUBRAHMANYAM, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain. The revised computation was duly filed which is also enclosed in the assessee‟s paper book page 2. The Ld.AR further relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The relevant para of page 9 is duly annexed herewith: - “7.2 In this regard, during the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. A.R. has argued that at the time

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI vs. NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN , PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG vs. NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN , PRABHADEVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI vs. NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN , PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), MUMBAI. , PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG vs. NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN , PRABHADEVI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI vs. NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN , PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14\nIn result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

Capital Territory of Delhi\n₹100.\nCertificate No.\nCertificate Issued Date\nAccount Reference\nUnique Doc. Reference\nPurchased by\nDescription of Document\nProperty Description.\nConsideration Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount(Rs.)\nIN-DL92752340682824X\n30-May-2025 11:35 AM\nIMPACC (IV)/dl839103/DELHI/DL-NED\nSUBIN-DLDL83910323551841475101X\nMOHAMMAD SALEEM\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nNot Applicable

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14 In result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/MUM/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistica...

Capital Territory of Delhi\n₹100.\nSHOIL SHCIL SHOIL SHCIL\nSHCIL SHOIL SHOIL SHCIL SHOIL\nCHUSHOIL SHOIL PHOV\ne-Stamp\nCertificate No.\nCertificate Issued Date\nAccount Reference\nUnique Doc. Reference\nPurchased by\nDescription of Document\nProperty Description.\nConsideration Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond\nParty\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount(Rs.)\nIN-DL92752340682824X

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14\nIn result the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

Capital Territory of Delhi\n₹100.\ne-Stamp\nCertificate No.\nCertificate Issued Date\nAccount Reference\nUnique Doc. Reference\n: IN-DL92752340682824X\n: 30-May-2025 11:35 AM\n: IMPACC (IV)/dl839103/DELHI/DL-NED\n: SUBIN-DLDL83910323551841475101X\nPurchased by\nDescription of Document\nProperty Description.\nConsideration Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount(Rs.)\n: MOHAMMAD SALEEM

MOHAMMAD SALEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, to give effect to this\norder after factual verification.\n8.14 In result, the appeal of assessee in 3950 to\n3954/Mum/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19, are partly allowed\nfor statistic...

Capital Territory of Delhi\n₹100.\ne-Stamp\nCertificate No. : IN-DL92752340682824X\nCertificate Issued Date : 30-May-2025 11:35 AM\nAccount Reference : IMPACC (IV)/dl839103/DELHI/DL-NED\nUnique Doc. Reference : SUBIN-DLDL83910323551841475101X\nPurchased by : MOHAMMAD SALEEM\nDescription of Document : Article 4 Affidavit\nProperty Description. : Not Applicable\nConsideration Price (Rs.) : 0\n(Zero)\nFirst Party : MOHAMMAD SALEEM\nSecond Party : Not Applicable\nStamp

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 132 (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, furth w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, further clarifies that a person may be examined not only er clarifies that a person may be examined not only in respect of the books