INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL DILIP SANKHE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

section 56(2)(v) by the assessing officer can be corrected u/s. 292B of the IT Act and the income is to be assessed u/s 56(2)(vii)(a) of the IT Act." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the sale price for shares of PBPL

VIVEK MEHROTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

property jointly held by the assessee's father and mother. The entry thereof is referred to in the cash book at page no. 129 of the Paper Book. 3 ITA NO.2359 & 2170/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2015-16) Shri Vivek Mehrotra 3. In the course of assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee's father this position was explained by letters dated

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI vs. SHRI NAVNITLAL RATANJI SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(3) Shri Navnitlal Ratanji Shah M-3, 13Th Floor, Eden Hall, Mumbai Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. Further to this, notice u/s. 142(1) dated 23.07.2015 was issued. The A.O. passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 28.03.2016 by determining the total income at Rs.6,68,13,580/- in the name of the assessee by making various additions/disallowances. It is observed that during the assessment proceeding

SURAJKUMAR & SONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant, Member & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Surajkumar & Sons 302,-C, Shivshakti Chs Ltd., Kashinath Dhuru Marg, Agar Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaqfs4464G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent

292B of the Act. The ld. AR brought our attention to the fact that being a partnership firm the assessee was under obligation to file its return of income even otherwise. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has contended

GAUTAM ENTERPRISES,THANE vs. PR. CIT -1, THANE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Gautam Enterprises Tax-1, Office No. 1B, 1St Floor, ‘B’ Wing, 6Th Floor, Shiv Krupa Chs Ltd, Ashar It Park Road 16Z, Vs. Charai, Thane, Wagle Ind Estate, Mumbai-400 601 Thane 400 604 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabfg0439L Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022

house property’. Therefore, the learned assessing officer should have disallowed the depreciation. He further found that assessee has received share of profit from another firm and the learned Assessing Officer failed to invoke the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 06. The learned PCIT was of the view that in the reassessment order passed by the learned assessing officer

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 292B and 29BB of the 1961 Act. Thus, keeping in view factual matrix of the ground, this legal ground is also adjudicated against the assessee. Thus, the assessee fails on both legal ground as well on merits of the issue with respect to deposit of cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- in bank account for which penalty as levied

ASHWIN LILADHAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin Liladhar Shah V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wile Mansion 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Abeps5329R (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, income from capital gain, income from business / profession and income from other sources. 3. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer treated the entire assessed income as the concealed income of the assessee since he has not filed return of income within the time prescribed u/s.139(1)/139(4) of the Act despite having taxable income. The Return

WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT - 5 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleworld Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit -5 4Th Floor, Wtp, Jln Room No. 515, 5Th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Sahai.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dr.Kishordhule.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

House Property. Further notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire issued through ITBA portal. In compliance to the notice the assessee has filed submissions. The AO on perusal of the financial statement and information found that the assessee has disclosed revenue from sale of building/shops/offices, other goods and rent on revenue sharing basis aggregating

AMISH R. KAPADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(30(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1858/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Amish R. Kapadia Ito, Ward – 12(3)(2), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Indian Mercantile Mansion, Madam Kama Road, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk 4127 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhirendra M. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. R. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.5.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2010, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 31.3.2009. The Only Issue In Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), Levied In The Sum Of Rs.6,08,170/-, I.E., At The Minimum Rate Of 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

house-hold/personal as well as medical expenses for the said period. Addition was, accordingly, made and confirmed at Rs.16.50 lacs; the A.O. accepting the cash deposit of Rs.15,000/- (made on 13.12.2004). The matter travelled up to the Tribunal, which confirmed the addition vide order dated 09.10.2009 (in ITA No. 2747/Mum/2008), the relevant part of which, extracted at para