ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciation rate of 5%’ under the Act and after its sale during the year, the said block ceased to exist under the provisions of the Act. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2011-12, 2015-16 to 2017-18 and 2019-20 to 2022-23 This factual position has also been acknowledged and affirmed by ld. CIT(A) while

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciation rate of 5%’ under the Act and after its sale during the year, the said block ceased to exist under the provisions of the Act. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2011-12, 2015-16 to 2017-18 and 2019-20 to 2022-23 This factual position has also been acknowledged and affirmed by ld. CIT(A) while

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciation rate of 5%’ under the Act and after its sale during the year, the said block ceased to exist under the provisions of the Act. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2011-12, 2015-16 to 2017-18 and 2019-20 to 2022-23 This factual position has also been acknowledged and affirmed by ld. CIT(A) while

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciation rate of 5%’ under the Act and after its sale during the year, the said block ceased to exist under the provisions of the Act. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2011-12, 2015-16 to 2017-18 and 2019-20 to 2022-23 This factual position has also been acknowledged and affirmed by ld. CIT(A) while

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciation rate of 5%’ under the Act and after its sale during the year, the said block ceased to exist under the provisions of the Act. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2011-12, 2015-16 to 2017-18 and 2019-20 to 2022-23 This factual position has also been acknowledged and affirmed by ld. CIT(A) while

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciation rate of 5%’ under the Act and after its sale during the year, the said block ceased to exist under the provisions of the Act. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2011-12, 2015-16 to 2017-18 and 2019-20 to 2022-23 This factual position has also been acknowledged and affirmed by ld. CIT(A) while

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciation rate of 5%’ under the Act and after its sale during the year, the said block ceased to exist under the provisions of the Act. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2011-12, 2015-16 to 2017-18 and 2019-20 to 2022-23 This factual position has also been acknowledged and affirmed by ld. CIT(A) while

CASCADE HOLDINGS PVT. LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93 M/S. Cascade Holdings Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 4(3), 32, Madhuli, Vs. Air India Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, 19Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5768N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. & Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R.

292C or 132(4A) while completing the assessment and rejecting the Appellant's contention that presumptions raised under section 132(4A) of the Act cannot be used for making routine assessment. 3) On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's contention that the learned AO erred in making

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

292C of the Act. 7.2 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as, re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act on the plea that the Ld. AO ignored the fact that there was no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment as there was no tangible material with

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation rate of 5%' under the Act and after its sale during\nthe year, the said block ceased to exist under the provisions of the Act.\nThis factual position has also been acknowledged and affirmed by ld.\nCIT(A) while dealing with this issue in Para 5.3.6 of the first appellate\norder which is undisputed and uncontroverted. Accordingly

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

depreciation rate of 5%' under the Act and after its sale during\nthe year, the said block ceased to exist under the provisions of the Act.\nThis factual position has also been acknowledged and affirmed by ld.\nCIT(A) while dealing with this issue in Para 5.3.6 of the first appellate\norder which is undisputed and uncontroverted. Accordingly

SURENDRA L. HIRANANDANI,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals for A

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhan

292C. (1) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed— (i) that such books of account

WEST COAST DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE & NURSING HOME,PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeewest Coast Diagnostic Centre Vs Cit(A), Pune-11 & Nursing Home, Aayakar Bhavan, 12, Sadhu Vaswani Main Road, Masoli, Dahanu Road, Pune-411011 Road, Dist. Palghar – 401 602 Pan : Aabfw4712E Appellant Respondent

Depreciation which Audited under Income Tax Act. 2. Actual Electricity Expenses for the period is Rs 5,54,220/- but as per Tentative Profit and Loss Accounts is only Rs 369140/- we hereby Enclosed Proof of electricity bill to Prove Assessee claim. 10 ITA 148/Mum/2024 West Coast Diagnostic and Nursing Home 3. Actual Oxygen Gas expenses for the period

VRUSHALI SANJAY SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 1, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevrushali Sanjay Shinde V. Dcit, Central Circle-1 282, Boundary Road B-101, Marigold, Prestige Residency G.B. Road, Kavesar, Thane- 400607 Civil Line, Meerut - 250001 Pan: Ajnps5211K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sankalp Malik Department Represented By : Shri Shanti Subramanian

section 292C of the Act provides that contents of the documents seized during the search or survey operation, shall be presumed to be correct. During the assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings, the appellant has not file any submission or explanation as to why the notings made on these papers are incorrect. Since, the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption

GREEN VALLEY HOME DEVELOPERS P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT (CC) 13, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

depreciation was claimed on the same. The assessee was only a monthly tenant and deriving only rent income in respect of the same which was duly offered to tax during the period in which it was received. Thus, the assessee never owned the premises at all. The director of the company was also informed by the earlier directors that

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

292C is a rebuttable presumption. However, in instant case, there is no uttable presumption. However, in instant case, there is no uttable presumption. However, in instant case, there is no contrary documents found in custody of the assessee or anywhere contrary documents found in custody of the assessee or anywhere contrary documents found in custody of the assessee or anywhere

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed