LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub- section

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub- section

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A; or (d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

Gains' and 'Income from Other Sources'. The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the completed under Section

DEEPAK VALJI KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

capital gain from the sale of scrip MJTL, based on the above observations Assessing Officer discussed in detail the investigations made by the investigation wing (Kolkata) and narrated the modus operandi operated 33 Shri Deepak Valji Karia by these operators in his order. It is fact on record, assessee has made investment in MJTL shares along with his family members

IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,MUMBAI, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-5, AYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

c)the order has not been made in\naccordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board\nunder section 119; or(d)the order has not been passed in accordance with any\ndecision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional\nHigh Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person

GYANCHAND ROOPCHAND MADHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the\nassessee are allowed for statistical purposes

2\nITA No. 4894/Mum/2025\nA.Y. 2021-22\nGyanchand Roopchand Madhani\n2. The grounds of appeal are as under:\n1. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned CIT(A) erred in in determining the income of the appellant at Rs.\n52,09,050/- in the assessment order as against the income declared

NITIN NARNHERAM PATEL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnitin Narbheram Patel Flat No.1702/1802, Wing-F, Pirojshah Nagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (E) Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aajpp4339A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac Mumbai- ..... Respondent

272A and 131 of the fact to verify the genuineness of the advance received from Mr Ranchod J kalia. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,74,000/- amount received from Mr Ranchod J Kalia merely on the ground that assesseefailed to produce any evidence. 10. Your Appellant craves, leave to amend alter