MRS. SONAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

capital bonds to the extent allowed and had paid the tax on the balance amount. As such, there was no revenue loss and hence penalty u/s 271C was un-called for having regard to section 273B of the Act. It is stated that the relevant documents of the sellers showing amount paid to them having been offered by them under

MRS.TARULATA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

capital bonds to the extent allowed and had paid the tax on the balance amount. As such, there was no revenue loss and hence penalty u/s 271C was un-called for having regard to section 273B of the Act. It is stated that the relevant documents of the sellers showing amount paid to them having been offered by them under

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

sections having two separate contingencies. In our opinion, the Legislature has not left any discretion on the revenue officers to make the assessment /reassessment under any of the said set of provisions as per their choice. This is a jurisdictional aspect and goes to the root of the assessment. 66. We also notice that, the Legislature for enforcement

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

gain -for squaring off and consolidation of receivable and payable, -operational efficiency, ease of MIS - for business exigencies to clear the transactions expeditiously and without any commercial loan. It was further submitted that: - All journal entries are genuine with corresponding journal entries in books of sister concerns. - At no point of time there was any cash transaction with the sister