BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

natural justice are satisfied. justice are satisfied. 60. In Bakshi Ghulam Mohamm 60. In Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ad, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross held that the right of hearing cannot include

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

natural justice are satisfied. justice are satisfied. 60. In Bakshi Ghulam Mohamm 60. In Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ad, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross held that the right of hearing cannot include

ORANGE FISH ENTERTAINMENT PRVITE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of on account of Provision for License Fees. The 4 Company has made provision as Provision for License Fees. The 4 Company has made provision as Provision for License Fees. The 4 Company has made provision as per consistently followed accounting policy. per consistently followed accounting policy. 2. The learned Commissioner

SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

natural justice. 3. The learned Pr. CIT learned Pr. CIT-1, Thane erroneously passed the order 1, Thane erroneously passed the order with pre-conceived conceived conceived notion notion notion and and and ordered ordered ordered to to to redo redo redo the the the assessment without having any solid reason/groundfor assessment without having any solid reason/groundfor assessment without having

MRS RAJANI S.IYER,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita No. 2239 & 2240/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, Acit-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaopi 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

natural justice. The Ld. Assessing Officer has neither called for the broker and made any inquiry and made has neither called for the broker and made any inquiry and made has neither called for the broker and made any inquiry and made addition simply on the basis of the report of the Director of the y on the basis

MRS RAJANI S. IYER,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-20(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita No. 2239 & 2240/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, Acit-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaopi 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

natural justice. The Ld. Assessing Officer has neither called for the broker and made any inquiry and made has neither called for the broker and made any inquiry and made has neither called for the broker and made any inquiry and made addition simply on the basis of the report of the Director of the y on the basis

PMI ENTERTAINMENT (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pmi Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Circle-16(1), 1501, Sorrento Veera Desai Road, 4Th Floor, 467, Aayakar Vs. Opp. Country Club, Andheri West- Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400053. Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aadcp 1031 E Appellant Respondent

natural justice by making huge disallowance of Rs. the principles of natural justice by making huge disallowance of Rs. the principles

M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMIITED ,MUMBSI vs. DY CIT(APPEAL)-RANGE-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

disallowance of Rs. 23,62,21,702/ 23,62,21,702/- made made in in respect respect of of transfer transfer pricing pricing adjustment on commission on the guarantees provided be adjustment on commission on the guarantees provided be adjustment on commission on the guarantees provided be deleted or be appropriately reduced. deleted or be appropriately reduced. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PARAM PROPERTT DEVLOPER,AMBERNATH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals are dismissed

disallowance of interest thereon could be\njustified.\n54. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed\nSHREE SHAJANAND ENTREPRISES\n55. IT(SS)A /3244/MUM/2025(A.Ys. 2017-18)\n1. That, the learned CIT(A)-11, Pune has grossly erred in not considering the\nimpugned block assessment order passed is against natural justice

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GRACE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

natural justice. Your honour may note that the Ld. A.O. blindly relied on the information provided by the DGIT (Inv.), that the said parties were engaged in providing accommodation entries. Your appellant had submitted all the necessary details that were available to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Thereafter, the onus of disproving the submissions and explanations of the appellant

MAYUR VASANT PATEL,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mayur Vasant Patel, The Acit Circle (27)(2), 11, Gangotri Chs Ltd., It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Near Maneklal Estate, Vs. Commercial Complex, Ghatkopar (W), Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Azcpp 4925 A Appellant Respondent

natural justice by disregarding the evidences submitted before CIT(A) merely on the arding the evidences submitted before CIT(A) merely on the arding the evidences submitted before CIT(A) merely on the ground of not filing application under rule 46A of the Act and passed ground of not filing application under rule 46A of the Act and passed ground

THE BYKE HOSPITALITY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2(2) (1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Byke Hospitality Ltd., National Faceless Appeal 156-158 Chakravarty Ashok Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Complex, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2)(1), Colony S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400099. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaack 2113 R Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Ms. Shivangi Chopara, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

natural justice is rejected. justice is rejected. 4.1.4 During the appell 4.1.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has ate proceedings, the appellant has cited several case laws of jurisdictional as well as non cited several case laws of jurisdictional as well as non cited several case laws of jurisdictional as well as non- jurisdictional High Courts

MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mead Johnson Nutrition (India) Acit, Circle-7(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room Unit No. 54, 5Th Floor, Kalpataru Vs. No. 573, 5Th Floor, M.K. Square, Andheri Kurla Road, Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aafcm 8167 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhaumik Goda Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 11/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2023

natural justice, contrary to well principles principles principles of of of law, law, law, based based based on on on unsubstantiated unsubstantiated unsubstantiated presumptions presumptions presumptions and and and erroneous erroneous erroneous interpretation interpretation interpretation of of of provisions of law. Thus, the Impugned Order is provisions of law. Thus, the Impugned Order is provisions of law. Thus, the Impugned

M/S. PORTFOLIO FASHIONS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt. Ltd., V. Cit (A) 5A, Jindal Mansion Delhi Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aadcp7858D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Hiro Rai Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

natural justice was denied by non-issue of show cause notice before making the additional disallowance of Rs. 6,98,35,282/- Thus

DCIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S B. CHOPDA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

natural justice are but the means to achieve the end of justice. They cannot of be perverted to achieve from opposite end. 6.2.26 In Bholanath Polyfab Pyt. Ltd. 335 ITR 290 (Guj), the facts of the case were that the assessee was engaged in the business of trading in finished fabrics. For the AY 2005-06, the Assessing Officer held

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(1), MUMBAI vs. KETAN ANIL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Ketan Anil Shah Income-Tax 19(1), Mumbai, 44/B Rajul Apartment Vs. Matru Mandir, Room No.203, J Mehta Marg, Napean Sea Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 Road, Mumbai-400 006 Pan No. Aaips 9400 J Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Anish Shah, Ca & Shri Haridas Bhat Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2023

natural justice and held that the opportunity of cross examination of witness is must in a case where some adverse inference is to b examination of witness is must in a case where some adverse inference is to be examination of witness is must in a case where some adverse inference is to b drawn against the assessee. Reliance

RITESH AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

Natural Justice. ON REASSESSMENT/JURISDICTION: ON REASSESSMENT/JURISDICTION: 2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned re- - assessment proceedings and the consequential assessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

natural justice and ground number 9 is dismissed. Assessee contended that the ground number 9 is dismissed. Assessee contended that the ground number 9 is dismissed. Assessee contended that the material received from the Sales tax department was not material received from the Sales tax department was not material received from the Sales tax department was not provided