DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

survey proceedings has evidentiary value. In this regard, on perusal of the said decision, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had the following question before it: - (A) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in relying on the statement under Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath

RITESH AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

house property (iv) (iv) Unverified Unverified and and non-genuine non genuine expenses expenses – ₹62,505/- (v) (v) (v) Interest Interest Interest on on on refund refund refund not not not offered offered offered – ₹1,461/- (vi) Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI (vi) Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A – ₹10,000/- Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal 2.3 In appeal

DCIT 27(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GOPURAM DEVELOPERS , MUMBAI

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

survey action u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) was carried out on 03-10-2022, wherein the Partner of the firm, Shri Kamal U. Jain stated voluntarily offered income of Rs. 5 crore relevant to year under confidential from the sale of Real Estate project. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return

VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

u/s 133A on 25-11- 02, in the premises of its sister concern, Le. VAIPL 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the observation made in the ITAT Order dated 06-04-2016, that the debit note seized pertained to AY 1999-2000 and the result of additions made in that year would be relevant to decide

VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

u/s 133A on 25-11- 02, in the premises of its sister concern, Le. VAIPL 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the observation made in the ITAT Order dated 06-04-2016, that the debit note seized pertained to AY 1999-2000 and the result of additions made in that year would be relevant to decide

VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

u/s 133A on 25-11- 02, in the premises of its sister concern, Le. VAIPL 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the observation made in the ITAT Order dated 06-04-2016, that the debit note seized pertained to AY 1999-2000 and the result of additions made in that year would be relevant to decide

VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

u/s 133A on 25-11- 02, in the premises of its sister concern, Le. VAIPL 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the observation made in the ITAT Order dated 06-04-2016, that the debit note seized pertained to AY 1999-2000 and the result of additions made in that year would be relevant to decide

VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

u/s 133A on 25-11- 02, in the premises of its sister concern, Le. VAIPL 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the observation made in the ITAT Order dated 06-04-2016, that the debit note seized pertained to AY 1999-2000 and the result of additions made in that year would be relevant to decide

VAMA PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT STORE PVT LTD.) ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

u/s 133A on 25-11- 02, in the premises of its sister concern, Le. VAIPL 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the observation made in the ITAT Order dated 06-04-2016, that the debit note seized pertained to AY 1999-2000 and the result of additions made in that year would be relevant to decide

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

house property ₹.1,45,100/-, was added to the income of the assessee. A Search action u/s 132 and survey action u/s 133A

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

house property ₹.1,45,100/-, was added to the income of the assessee. A Search action u/s 132 and survey action u/s 133A

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

survey action u/s 133A of the Act at its ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 business premises on 31-10-2009 simultaneously. 2.12. Now, we shall discuss certain case laws. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (ITA 707/2014) order

ASST CIT 27(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MERIT MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

133A of I.T. Act, 1961 on appellant's office at Chembur and various site offices, on 24th and 25th January 2012. In the course of survey proceedings, various pads, diaries and loose papers were impounded which were explained in the post survey proceedings by partner and staff in the course of recording statements u/s

ACIT CIR 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PARMAR BUILT TECH, MUMBAI

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

133A conducted at the business premises of the assessee situated at Parmar techno house, Pelhar village, western express highway, Vasai (E) and Parmar estate, Parikh Nagar, Kandiwali (w) on 16/10/2008 by the income tax officer Ward 4 (2), Thane. 020. During the course of survey, statement of partner of the firm Shri Bakul Jayantilal Parmar was recorded

DCIT COR 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PARMAR BUILD TECH, MUMBAI

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

133A conducted at the business premises of the assessee situated at Parmar techno house, Pelhar village, western express highway, Vasai (E) and Parmar estate, Parikh Nagar, Kandiwali (w) on 16/10/2008 by the income tax officer Ward 4 (2), Thane. 020. During the course of survey, statement of partner of the firm Shri Bakul Jayantilal Parmar was recorded

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

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -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

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