D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

disallowing of Rs.1,08,40,272/- being difference in stamp being difference in stamp duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, under section 43CA of the Act. under section 43CA

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

disallowing of Rs.1,08,40,272/- being difference in stamp being difference in stamp duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, under section 43CA of the Act. under section 43CA

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

153C r.w.s.144 without any incriminating material. Since we have already quashed the assessment order for AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2019-20 for the reason of non-issue of notice under section 143(2) and is issued without DIN, this ground for AY 2019-20 has become academic and hence left open. ITA No.1940/Mum/2023

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

153C r.w.s.144 without any incriminating material. Since we have already quashed the assessment order for AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2019-20 for the reason of non-issue of notice under section 143(2) and is issued without DIN, this ground for AY 2019-20 has become academic and hence left open. ITA No.1940/Mum/2023

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

153C r.w.s.144 without any incriminating material. Since we have already quashed the assessment order for AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2019-20 for the reason of non-issue of notice under section 143(2) and is issued without DIN, this ground for AY 2019-20 has become academic and hence left open. ITA No.1940/Mum/2023

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

153C r.w.s.144 without any incriminating material. Since we have already quashed the assessment order for AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2019-20 for the reason of non-issue of notice under section 143(2) and is issued without DIN, this ground for AY 2019-20 has become academic and hence left open. ITA No.1940/Mum/2023

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

153C r.w.s.144 without any incriminating material. Since we have already quashed the assessment order for AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2019-20 for the reason of non-issue of notice under section 143(2) and is issued without DIN, this ground for AY 2019-20 has become academic and hence left open. ITA No.1940/Mum/2023

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

disallowing of long term capital gains\nexemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 10(38) of the\nAct.\n6.3.\nBeing aggrieved, the Assessee has carried out in appeal before the\nTribunal by way of Ground No. 2 raised in the present appeal.\n6.4.\nWe have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions.\n6.5.\nThe Assessee has set up a case

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

2, the Tribunal found infirmities in the documentary evidence provided by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with further opportunity to present evidence and be confronted with the material relied upon, setting aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer for statistical purposes.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(1)", "Section 147", "Section

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

disallowance made by the AO under section 69C of the Act. Accordingly,\nthe grounds no.3 and 4 raised in assessee's appeal are allowed.\n29. In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-\n12 is partly allowed.\nITA No. 2022/Mum./2023\nAssessee's appeal- A.Y. 2013-14\n30. In this appeal, the assessee has raised

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

disallowance made by the AO under section 69C of the Act. Accordingly,\nthe grounds no.3 and 4 raised in assessee's appeal are allowed.\n29. In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-\n12 is partly allowed.\nITA No. 2022/Mum./2023\nAssessee's appeal- A.Y. 2013-14\n30. In this appeal, the assessee has raised

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), CENTRAL RANGE - 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

disallowing of Rs.1,08,40,272/- being difference in stamp duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, under section 43CA of the Act.\n6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands\ndismissed as infructuous

disallowance of\nvarious expenses made in the assessment order. If the delay is\nnot condoned, the appellant shall be highly prejudiced as\nsubstantial additions and demand will be confirmed without\naffording the appellant a sufficient opportunity to present it's\ncase.\n13. In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay of 94 days\nin filing the appeal

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

disallowing of Rs.1,08,40,272/- being difference in stamp\nduty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year,\nunder section 43CA of the Act.\n6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274\nr.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The\nAppellant prays that the penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

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

disallowance or addition made in order u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act. The made in order u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act. made in order u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act. second option was that was that to repeat the additions which were made in to repeat the additions which were

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

disallowance or addition made in order u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act. The made in order u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act. made in order u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act. second option was that was that to repeat the additions which were made in to repeat the additions which were