J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

282A of the Act would become redundant. Further, this\ndecision of Chattisgarh High Court in Bharat Krishi Kendra,\nsupra, is rendered by single judge bench whereas the decisions\nof Allahabad High Court in the case of Daujee Abhushan\nBhandar, supra, and Vikas Gupta, supra, are rendered by\n35 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\ndivision judge bench. Therefore as per judicial discipline

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

282A of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground 1 above, if Hon'ble ITAT concludes that the impugned Notices were issued on or after 1st April, 2021, then, the new regime of Section 147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961, shall govern these reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

282A of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground 1 above, if Hon'ble ITAT concludes that the impugned Notices were issued on or after 1st April, 2021, then, the new regime of Section 147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961, shall govern these reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

282A of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground 1 above, if Hon'ble ITAT concludes that the impugned Notices were issued on or after 1st April, 2021, then, the new regime of Section 147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961, shall govern these reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union

DCIT CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

282A of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground 1 above, if Hon'ble ITAT concludes that the impugned Notices were issued on or after 1st April, 2021, then, the new regime of Section 147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961, shall govern these reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

282A of the Act; (iii) no incriminating documents in respect of the assessee was found from the possession of persons covered under sec. 153A of the Act, no new facts outside the record of the authorities below is required to be considered. In other words, the question of law raised above is arising from the facts which are on record

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

282A of the Act; (iii) no incriminating documents in respect of the assessee was found from the possession of persons covered under sec. 153A of the Act, no new facts outside the record of the authorities below is required to be considered. In other words, the question of law raised above is arising from the facts which are on record

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

282A of the Act; (iii) no incriminating documents in respect of the assessee was found from the possession of persons covered under sec. 153A of the Act, no new facts outside the record of the authorities below is required to be considered. In other words, the question of law raised above is arising from the facts which are on record

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Section 282A{l), it is evident that the\nterms\"and"and \"or\" possessed instinct\nstatutory significance. A proper construction of\nthe provision necessitates giving full effect to\nthe sewords in accordance with settled\nprinciples of interpretation. Incontrast, the\nassessee's contentio nattempts to disregard the\nexplicit use of \"and\" and \"or\" and advancesan\ninterpretation that is inconsistent with the\nexpress

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

1 to \ncontend that the phrase \"shall be signed\" in Section \n282A(l) of the Act imposes a mandatory requirement for \nnotices and other documents to be physically signed \nby the designated income-tax authority. Additionally, \nto emphasize the binding nature of this non jurisdictional High court's decision on the Hon'ble ITAT, \nthe assessee has relied upon

M/S. DEVISHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

282A of the 1. T. Act, 1961 since the form- Approval u/s 151 of the 1. T. Act, 1961 is not signed by the nor the name and designation of the specified authority is mentioned on such approval form. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Vikas Gupta

M/S. DEVISHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

282A of the 1. T. Act, 1961 since the form- Approval u/s 151 of the 1. T. Act, 1961 is not signed by the nor the name and designation of the specified authority is mentioned on such approval form. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Vikas Gupta

GUPTA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed the interest to the tune of Rs. 3,49,677/- on said loan. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before the CIT(A) the assessee raised a legal contention stating that the notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued on 01.04.2021 and that

PIYUSH SUBHASH WADHWA,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpiyush Subhash Wadhwa V/S. Commissioner Of Income 64, Ashirwad Icici बनाम Tax (Appeal)National Apartments, Gd Ambekar Appeal Faceless Centre, Marg, Naigaon Dadar(E), Delhi Mumbai – 400 014, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagpw3024N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 282A(1) of the Act. This ground goes to the root of the validity of the order. Further, there were errors committed in computation sheet while computing the total income and tax thereon. These grounds were P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Piyush Subhash Wadhwa neither raised before AO/CIT(A) nor before the Bench while filing appeal