JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated

ACIT (TDS) -2(1), MUMBAI vs. OMKAR REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Omkar Realtors & Developers Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Omkar House, Off Eastern Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Vs. Express Highway, Bldg., Charni Road (W), Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Mumbai - 400002 Sion, Mumbai - 400022 Pan: Aaaco7919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 237/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6814/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Omkar House, Off Eastern Express 6Th Floor, Smt. K.G. Mittal Highway, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Charni Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Sion Road (West), East, Mumbai - 400022 Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaaco7919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Omkar Realtors & Developers Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Omkar House, Off Eastern Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Vs. Express Highway, Bldg., Charni Road (W), Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Mumbai - 400002 Sion, Mumbai - 400022 Pan: Aaaco7919F (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property. That being the case, the payment made by the assessee also being in the nature of compensation for alternative accommodation cannot be treated as rent. Moreover, such compensation is not using land and building but it may also be a fact that persons to whom such payments have been made may not be incurring any expenditure on account

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

property discovered in the course of search." 20.18 The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Guruprerana Enterprises v. ACIT (57 DTR 465), has held that only the assessments pending before the AO for completion shall abate u/s. 153A and the issues decided in the assessment cannot be reconsidered and re-adjudicated, unless there is some fresh material found

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

House, Popat Wadi\nKalbadevi Road,\nMumbai-400 002.\nAppellant\nPAN NO. AA ECA 4133 B\nRespondent\nAssessee by\n: Dr. K. Shivaram &\nMr. Shashi Bekal\nRevenue by\n: Mr. Manish Sareen, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing\n: 29/02/2024\nDate of pronouncement : 25/04/2024\nORDER\nPER BENCH\nThese appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed\nagainst a common order dated

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

133A of the Act on 5-4-2006 has been relied upon by the AO without providing opportunity of cross examination which is against the principles of natural justice and on this short ground itself the re-assessment is liable to be quashed. He submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3