SAGARMAL SOHANLAL JAIN,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(4), KALYAN

In the result, both the additions are directed to be deleted and the orders of the lower authorities are reversed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Sagarmal Sohanlal Jain, Ito Ward 3(4) Shop No.6, Omkar Society, It Ashar Park, Road No.16Z, M.G. Road, Opp. Railway Station, 6Th Floor, Waghale Estate, Vs. Dombivli (West), Thane, Thane, Mumbai-400604 Mumbai-421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aatpj4675K Assessee By : Shri N.A. Kulkarni, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

Section 69D of the Act and considered it to be deemed income of the assessee. 05. The second issue, it was found that the revision of return made by the assessee was to show the income under the Act income from house property

CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

house property. For the same, the assessee had authorized his father to withdraw cash at periodic intervals from his Bank Account with Central Bank of India A/c No. 1182615215 from February, 2016. Considering the security and other aspects, the assessee felt it prudent to withdraw the amount not at one Page No. | 6 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO go but over

DCIT ,CC- 8(4), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK R. RUIA (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

Property Act for the impugned assessment year 1999- 2000. In order to make out such a case, the Assessing Officer has refused to look into the events, which followed after 31-3-1999. If the Assessing Officer read the entire episode as a whole, the Assessing Officer would know that there was no actual transfer of any capital asset from

SUHASIT STAR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-15(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and that of\nthe Revenue are dismissed

69D, at the rate of 30%\n(plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any\nexpenditure or allowance. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1)\nof Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second\nAmendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f. 01.04.2017 i.e. AY 2017-18. Taxation\nLaws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 received the assent of the\nPresident of India only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

properties, identification of potential investors and\nnegotiations with the investors, securing NOC's & occuрапсу\ncertificates for projects, SWOT analysis for product placement,\nDocumentation work, Design of foundations as per the soil\ninvestigation reports for infrastructure projects, etc. The\nassessee also claims that service/GST and TDS has been\ndeducted on the remittance made by the clients

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

properties, identification of potential investors and\nnegotiations with the investors, securing NOC's & occuрапсу\ncertificates for projects, SWOT analysis for product placement,\nDocumentation work, Design of foundations as per the soil\ninvestigation reports for infrastructure projects, etc. The\nassessee also claims that service/GST and TDS has been\ndeducted on the remittance made by the clients

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

property to such amount as it thinks fit not exceeding the amount of cost of attachment and of any fine which may be imposed under Rule 12. Once the AO has invoked the provisions of Section 131 of Page No. | 31 ITA NO. 1564& 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., the IT Act, he will

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

property to such amount as it thinks fit not exceeding the amount of cost of attachment and of any fine which may be imposed under Rule 12. Once the AO has invoked the provisions of Section 131 of Page No. | 31 ITA NO. 1564& 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., the IT Act, he will