SYNCHEM CHEMICALS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 115JB of the Act have an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act. But where a particular receipt from its inception is not at all income such as capital receipt as is present in the instant case, then, the said capital receipt would be outside the scope of inclusion as book profits u/s.115JB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

capital gains transaction. Our attention was invited to the assessment order (para 11.2) page 21, wherein reference has been made to the statement of Shri Sujal C Shah, recorded on oath under section 131 of the Act, during survey under section. 133A of the Act carried out at M/s. DPS Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd. The learned CIT-DR relied upon

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

capital gains transaction. Our attention was invited to the assessment order (para 11.2) page 21, wherein reference has been made to the statement of Shri Sujal C Shah, recorded on oath under section 131 of the Act, during survey under section. 133A of the Act carried out at M/s. DPS Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd. The learned CIT-DR relied upon

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

capital gains transaction. Our attention was invited to the assessment order (para 11.2) page 21, wherein reference has been made to the statement of Shri Sujal C Shah, recorded on oath under section 131 of the Act, during survey under section. 133A of the Act carried out at M/s. DPS Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd. The learned CIT-DR relied upon

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

capital gains transaction. Our attention was invited to the assessment order (para 11.2) page 21, wherein reference has been made to the statement of Shri Sujal C Shah, recorded on oath under section 131 of the Act, during survey under section. 133A of the Act carried out at M/s. DPS Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd. The learned CIT-DR relied upon

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