ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

section 153 153A with the last assessed income or last income upheld in 153A with the last assessed income or last incom 153A with the last assessed income or last incom appellate proceedings appellate proceedings and then add the disallowance

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

section 153 153A with the last assessed income or last income upheld in 153A with the last assessed income or last incom 153A with the last assessed income or last incom appellate proceedings appellate proceedings and then add the disallowance

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

disallowance of Rs. 1,01,300 under section 14A, are beyond the scope of section 153A / 153C. Consequently, we set aside

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowances. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. Before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment made under section 143(3) r/w section 153A

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word „reassess‟ to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word „reassess‟ to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word „reassess‟ to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis

ABHISHEK LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

sections 132 or 132A of the Act, in much 16 ITA No. 4910-2015 (A.Y. 2007-08) Abhishek Lodha, Mumbai as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question of re-assessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require more reiteration and it is only in the context

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

disallowed. Thus, an addition of Rs. 35,37,725/- is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under under section 270A r.w.s

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

disallowed. Thus, an addition of Rs. 35,37,725/- is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under under section 270A r.w.s

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

disallowed. Thus, an addition of Rs. 35,37,725/- is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under under section 270A r.w.s

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

disallowed. Thus, an addition of Rs. 35,37,725/- is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under under section 270A r.w.s

MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3) ERSTWHILE CE CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

sections 132 or 132A of the Act, in much as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question of re-assessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require more reiteration and it is only in the context of the abated assessment under second proviso which is required

MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3) ERSTWHILE CE CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

sections 132 or 132A of the Act, in much as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question of re-assessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require more reiteration and it is only in the context of the abated assessment under second proviso which is required

MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3) ERSTWHILE CE CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

sections 132 or 132A of the Act, in much as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question of re-assessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require more reiteration and it is only in the context of the abated assessment under second proviso which is required

MANJULA MANGALPRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3)(ERSTWHILE CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

sections 132 or 132A of the Act, in much as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question of re-assessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require more reiteration and it is only in the context of the abated assessment under second proviso which is required

MANJULA MANGALPRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3)(ERSTWHILE CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

sections 132 or 132A of the Act, in much as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question of re-assessment of the concluded assessment does not arise, which would require more reiteration and it is only in the context of the abated assessment under second proviso which is required

RAMESH SUMERMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 36, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarसर्वश्री सक्तिक्िि डे, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं रािेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.414/Mum/2010 (यनधावरण र्र्व / Assessment Years : 2001-02) Shri Ramesh Sumermal Shah, बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 220, Commerce House, Circle 36, Vs. 140 N M Road, Fort, 11/43, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aagps9863H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Prawin Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing :28.4.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement :28 .11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumarthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 13/11/2009 Of Ld. Cit(Appeals)-41 Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2001-02 Passed Against The Assessment Framed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Called The Act). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case He Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,25,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Disbelieving Gift Received By The Appellant”

153A was issued on the assessee on 20.8.2007 which was complied by the assessee by filing return of income on 27.11.2007 declaring total income of Rs.7,17,610/- same as declared in the original return of income and assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A by an order dated 3.10.2008 by making various disallowances

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 153A assessment cannot be made for the assessment years in which incriminating material is not recovered even though incriminating material may be recovered for other years in the block of 6 years. 20.25 The Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of LMJ International Ltd. vs. DCIT (119 TTJ 214) has observed as under: "Where nothing incriminating is found