PUSHPAK AUXICHEM P. LTD,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(3), KALYAN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-1(3), बनाम/ 241/Business-2, Kasturi Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, Vs. Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Manpada Wayle Nagar, Road, Dombivali (East), Khadak Pada, Thane-421201 Kalyan-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

Section 158BFA(1). No arguments were advanced by the learned representatives of both sides in relation to this point. The AO is directed to grant consequential relief. 80. Ground No. (7) relates to initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). No such ground can be raised in an appeal against the assessment order. Separate appeal will lie against

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S TRISHUL REALTY INFRA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowed the interest expense thereon of Rs.3,15,148/- u/s.69C of the Act. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessment u/s.153A of the Act is not based on any incriminating material relating to the assessee found in the course of search. The impugned assessment order has not made any reference of any such incriminating material/ asset

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S TRISHUL REALTY INFRA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowed the interest expense thereon of Rs.3,15,148/- u/s.69C of the Act. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessment u/s.153A of the Act is not based on any incriminating material relating to the assessee found in the course of search. The impugned assessment order has not made any reference of any such incriminating material/ asset

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Disallowance of interest and other expenses be deleted since they are included in value of closing work in progress.” 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that retraction made by Shri Jitendra Jain is bad in law since retraction was made after expiry of two years it can only

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Disallowance of interest and other expenses be deleted since they are included in value of closing work in progress.” 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that retraction made by Shri Jitendra Jain is bad in law since retraction was made after expiry of two years it can only

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Disallowance of interest and other expenses be deleted since they are included in value of closing work in progress.” 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that retraction made by Shri Jitendra Jain is bad in law since retraction was made after expiry of two years it can only

KAMLA LAMDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Disallowance of interest and other expenses be deleted since they are included in value of closing work in progress.” 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that retraction made by Shri Jitendra Jain is bad in law since retraction was made after expiry of two years it can only

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4), CENTRAL CIRCLE,, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Disallowance of interest and other expenses be deleted since they are included in value of closing work in progress.” 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that retraction made by Shri Jitendra Jain is bad in law since retraction was made after expiry of two years it can only

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Disallowance of interest and other expenses be deleted since they are included in value of closing work in progress.” 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that retraction made by Shri Jitendra Jain is bad in law since retraction was made after expiry of two years it can only

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES, ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Disallowance of interest and other expenses be deleted since they are included in value of closing work in progress.” 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that retraction made by Shri Jitendra Jain is bad in law since retraction was made after expiry of two years it can only

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 158B(b) as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995. The said provision is reproduced below: "158B--In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a)......:.... (b) "undisclosed income" includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 158B(b) as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995. The said provision is reproduced below: "158B--In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a)......:.... (b) "undisclosed income" includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and which were also subject matter of the Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. In the appellate order, the Commissioner noted ground no.6 30 M/s Saturn Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. which is the addition made of Rs.96,16,924/ as deemed dividend. The Commissioner referred to the factual position and the arguments

M/S SAHAJ ANKUR DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 3 (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) 13 ITA. Nos. 330 to 332/Mum/2020 AYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 Sahaj Ankur Developers of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence

M/S SAHAJ ANKUR DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 3 (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) 13 ITA. Nos. 330 to 332/Mum/2020 AYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 Sahaj Ankur Developers of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence

M/S SAHAJ ANKUR DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 3 (4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) 13 ITA. Nos. 330 to 332/Mum/2020 AYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 Sahaj Ankur Developers of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence

KAMLASHRI DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

KAMLASHRI DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable