SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi. It formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building’. For the purpose of the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate 5%)’ and commercial property is classified as a separate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi. It formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building’. For the purpose of the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate 5%)’ and commercial property is classified as a separate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi. It formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building’. For the purpose of the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate 5%)’ and commercial property is classified as a separate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi. It formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building’. For the purpose of the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate 5%)’ and commercial property is classified as a separate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi. It formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building’. For the purpose of the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate 5%)’ and commercial property is classified as a separate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi. It formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building’. For the purpose of the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate 5%)’ and commercial property is classified as a separate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi. It formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building’. For the purpose of the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate 5%)’ and commercial property is classified as a separate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi. It formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building’. For the purpose of the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate 5%)’ and commercial property is classified as a separate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi. It formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building’. For the purpose of the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate 5%)’ and commercial property is classified as a separate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi.\nIt formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements\nprepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building'. For the purpose\nof the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block 'Buildings\n(depreciation rate 5%) and commercial property is classified as a\nseparate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

house by its Director Mr. Ambuj Chaturvedi.\nIt formed part of its fixed assets and reported in its financial statements\nprepared under the Companies Act, 2013 as ‘Building'. For the purpose\nof the Act, a residential property forms part of the Block 'Buildings\n(depreciation rate 5%) and commercial property is classified as a\nseparate Block – ‘Buildings (depreciation rate

JORA RAM MALI,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2)MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

292C applies only to the person from whose possession documents are seized, and not to unrelated third parties. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant. 7. Addition Based on Suspicion / Presumption The addition is based on assumptions, without independent verification, corroborative material, or any linkage to the appellant. 8. Prayer for Relief The appellant prays that

JORA RAM MALI,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2)MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

292C applies only to the person from whose possession documents are seized, and not to unrelated third parties. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant. 7. Addition Based on Suspicion / Presumption The addition is based on assumptions, without independent verification, corroborative material, or any linkage to the appellant. 8. Prayer for Relief The appellant prays that

PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6(1), NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

house property, business, capital gains, and other sources. 5. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 23.09.2021 in the case of Rucha Group. The assessee was also covered in the said search action. Subsequently, the case was centralised with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai, by virtue

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

house property, business, capital gains, and other sources. 5. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 23.09.2021 in the case of Rucha Group. The assessee was also covered in the said search action. Subsequently, the case was centralised with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai, by virtue

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 and received advance. Further, he filed the its written submissions, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below: - “5. The Assessee submits that the said addition is not permissible in his hands, for the following amongst other reasons, each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to any other: a. That as per section 292C

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI , BKC, MUMBAI vs. PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR , PNUE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

house property, capital gain and from other sources. Impugned assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) by making an addition of Rs.90,83,900/- u/s. 69A and Rs.9,67,10,536/- u/s. 69C, determining total assessed income at Rs.16,33,56,256/-. 4. In respect of addition of Rs.14 lakhs made u/s. 69C for which Revenue is in appeal vide ground