VAMA PVT LTD [FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD],MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 5 (3), MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act in the case of one of the group concern on 25.11.2002 a debit note was found as per which another group company paid service charges to the assessee-company amounting to Rs. 2,00,20,500/-. The Assessing Officer noted that an addition of Rs. 2,00.20,500/- was made on account

VAMA PVT LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD] ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act in the case of one of the group concern on 25.11.2002 a debit note was found as per which another group company paid service charges to the assessee-company amounting to Rs. 2,00,20,500/-. The Assessing Officer noted that an addition of Rs. 2,00.20,500/- was made on account

VAMA PVT LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE-5 (3), MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act in the case of one of the group concern on 25.11.2002 a debit note was found as per which another group company paid service charges to the assessee-company amounting to Rs. 2,00,20,500/-. The Assessing Officer noted that an addition of Rs. 2,00.20,500/- was made on account

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) However, while upholding the addition on merits, the learned CIT(A) rejected the objections raised against rejected the objections raised against the initiation of reassessment the initiation of reassessment proceedings under

RAJANIKANT C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

delay is condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts as culled out from the orders of the lower authorities are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 30-03-2006 declaring total income at Rs.3,83,650. During the year under consideration, the assessee was a director in M/s Sreeji Transport Service

MANGALDEEP MULTISTATE URBAN CO.OP.CR. SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

delay of 13 days in filing the present appeals by the assessee is condoned.\n3. Since these appeals pertain to the same assessee and involve similar issues that arise out of a similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the appeal

JAIMIN JEWELLERY EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Jaimin Jewellery Exports Private Acit-19(2) Limited Dcit, Circle-5(2)(1), Marine Lines, 52, Marble Arch, 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 026

survey action u/s. 133A of the Act dated 01.10.2007 were undertaken and the assessee then declared additional income of Rs.1,36,74,755/- on account of unaccounted cash purchase of Rs.43,20,023/- and Rs.93,54,732/- on account of excess physical stock over and above the book stock was declared as ‘additional income’ by the assessee

TAURUS TRANSPORT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

delay is condoned. 3. Now, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee on merit. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the disallowance were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on estimate basis and identically for Assessment Year 2007- 08 and 2008-09, the claim of the assessee was accepted though u/s

TAURUS TRANSPORT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

delay is condoned. 3. Now, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee on merit. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the disallowance were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on estimate basis and identically for Assessment Year 2007- 08 and 2008-09, the claim of the assessee was accepted though u/s

HOTEL DEEPAK ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

delay of 5 days is condoned. 3. Coming to the merit of the case, it is observed that a survey action u/s 133A

ACIT -6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CLOTHING CULTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal By The Revenue During The Covid Period. Hence, In View Of The Relaxation Granted By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, The Delay Of 123 Days Is Hereby Condoned & Appeal Of The Revenue Is Admitted For Adjudication.

delay of 123 days is hereby condoned and appeal of the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 2.1. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the profits and gains of Rs. 34,01,87,229/- derived

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

survey action u/s. 133A amounting to Rs. 30,65,075/-. The ld. AO initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and vide order dated 16.08.2004 levied a penalty of Rs. 12,12,237/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income to the tune

VAMA APPARELS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-42, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is a retail trader in readymade garments, watches and other accessories. The revenue carried out survey operation u/s 133A

ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. KARAN R. SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

condone the delay of 907 days in filing the appeal. Resultantly, 48 I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 & 1238/Mum/2018 Karan R. Shah this application is allowed and appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 23. The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO on account of addition

SRM SITES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 7(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-12 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Srm Sites Pvt. Ltd., The Commissioner Of Income Shree Ram Mills Premises, Tax (Appeals)-14 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aancs0873M (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/S Srm Sites Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer-7(2)(4), Shree Ram Mills Premises, Mumbai Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aancs0873M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradeep Sharma (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2019

133A was carried out on the business premises of the assessee company on 30.10.2012. During the survey action, a dispute arose regarding accounting policy followed by the assessee with regard to the recognition of the revenue on the construction contract. The assessee agreed to offer revenue on such construction contract by offering of income at the rate

MANGALDEEP MULTISTATE URBAN CO.OP.CR. SOC. LTD.,KOLKATTA vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 13 days in filing the present appeals by the assessee is condoned. 3. Since these appeals pertain to the same assessee and involve similar issues that arise out of a similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the appeal

MANGALDEEP MULTISTATE URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 13 days in filing the present appeals by the assessee is condoned. 3. Since these appeals pertain to the same assessee and involve similar issues that arise out of a similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the appeal

JT. CIT -(OSD),CC- 6(3), MUMBAI vs. KROSSLINK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhjcit (Osd), Central Circle-6(3) M/S Krosslink Infrastructure Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Ltd., 507/511, Vypar Bhavan, Air India Building, Vs. 49, P.D. Mellor Road, Nariman Point, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400009 Pan: Aabck2801R Appellant Respondent

133A of the Act. It was informed that during the course of search / survey proceedings ITA No. 3122/ M/20 18, C.O. 134/ M /2019 & ITA 3863/ M/2018 M/s Krosslink Infrastructure Ltd. and post search enquiries it was revealed from the ledger accounts that sub-contract work to the tune of Rs.76,36,75,929/- was claimed to have been undertaken