ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

132 of the Act, notice under 28 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

132 of the Act, notice under 28 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

4,12,214/- on account of Depreciation. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said disallowance made by the Ld. A.O. is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A. O. erred in making an addition

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee)\n4. The essence of the recorded statements was that based on materials seized

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n4\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee)\n4. The essence of the recorded statements was that based on materials seized

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee)\n4. The essence of the recorded statements was that based on materials seized

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1, MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n5\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n4\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n5\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n5\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n5\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant)\n4\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant)\n(c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor)\n(d) Shri Pratap Patil (Assistant Accountant)\n(e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad (Registrar)\n(f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out at the premises of was carried out at the premises of the assessee along with cases of the assessee along with cases of onsequent to search action M/s ‘Ushdev Group’ ’ on 11.09.2014. Consequent to search action notice u/s 153A were issued in respect of relevant

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

depreciation allowance of Rs.29,56,250/- on other buildings. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company stated facts of the case are that the assessee company stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing of fiber, chemical, cement and sponge, is engaged in manufacturing of fiber, chemical, cement

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

132[4]/131 which have been retracted, contending that the same are purely notional and unsupported by any cogent material. It has been argued that such additions rest entirely on excel sheets which were not prepared by the assessee and are purely for MIS purposes, which neither constitute books of account nor possess any evidentiary sanctity in the eyes

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

132[4]/131 which have been retracted, contending that the same are purely notional and unsupported by any cogent material. It has been argued that such additions rest entirely on excel sheets which were not prepared by the assessee and are purely for MIS purposes, which neither constitute books of account nor possess any evidentiary sanctity in the eyes

EI BENEFICARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

3230/Mum/2025 Govind

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

132[4]/131 which have been retracted , contending that the same are purely notional and unsupported by any cogent material. It has been argued that such additions rest entirely on excel sheets which were not prepared by the assessee and are purely for MIS purposes, which neither constitute books of account nor possess any evidentiary sanctity in the eyes