BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section

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

1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was illegal and no order under section 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made. 10. The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain’s case [2000] 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) held that it is axiomatic that search under section

DY CIT CC 6(4) , MUMBAI vs. SMT. DEVAL D THAKKAR [NOW KNOWN AS SMT DEVAL E ANTHONY], MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

reassessment notice and all consequent proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed; however without order on costs.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.07.2019 dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the department on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Brahmdatt (supra), thus making the Delhi High Court

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

120(3) of the Act. We hold that after the transfer of the case u/s 127(2) to the DCIT Central Circle 4(1) Mumbai, the PCIT-27Mumbai on 17/01/2018 also had no legal powers to grant any sanction u/s 151 or to transfer/ deemed transfer the case at all back to his charge. In fact, after transferring the case

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

120(3) of the Act. We hold that after the transfer of the case u/s 127(2) to the DCIT Central Circle 4(1) Mumbai, the PCIT-27Mumbai on 17/01/2018 also had no legal powers to grant any sanction u/s 151 or to transfer/ deemed transfer the case at all back to his charge. In fact, after transferring the case

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

120(3) of the Act. We hold that after the transfer of the case u/s 127(2) to the DCIT Central Circle 4(1) Mumbai, the PCIT-27Mumbai on 17/01/2018 also had no legal powers to grant any sanction u/s 151 or to transfer/ deemed transfer the case at all back to his charge. In fact, after transferring the case

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

120(3) of the Act. We hold that after the transfer of the case u/s 127(2) to the DCIT Central Circle 4(1) Mumbai, the PCIT-27Mumbai on 17/01/2018 also had no legal powers to grant any sanction u/s 151 or to transfer/ deemed transfer the case at all back to his charge. In fact, after transferring the case

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

120(3) of the Act. We hold that after the transfer of the case u/s 127(2) to the DCIT Central Circle 4(1) Mumbai, the PCIT-27Mumbai on 17/01/2018 also had no legal powers to grant any sanction u/s 151 or to transfer/ deemed transfer the case at all back to his charge. In fact, after transferring the case

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

120(3) of the Act. We hold that after the transfer of the case u/s 127(2) to the DCIT Central Circle 4(1) Mumbai, the PCIT-27Mumbai on 17/01/2018 also had no legal powers to grant any sanction u/s 151 or to transfer/ deemed transfer the case at all back to his charge. In fact, after transferring the case

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

120(3) of the Act. We hold that after the transfer of the case u/s 127(2) to the DCIT Central Circle 4(1) Mumbai, the PCIT-27Mumbai on 17/01/2018 also had no legal powers to grant any sanction u/s 151 or to transfer/ deemed transfer the case at all back to his charge. In fact, after transferring the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI vs. UNITED STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.541/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax United Stock Exchange Of India Ltd. (Since Merged With Bse Limited) Central Circle-2(1) बनाम/ 25Th Floor (West Wing), P.J. Towers Room No.804,8Th Floor Vs. Dalal Street, Fort Old Cgo Building, Annex Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road,Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcu-0464-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.103/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) United Stock Exchange Of India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Since Merged With Bse Limited) Tax Central Circle-2(1) बनाम/ 25Th Floor (West Wing), P.J. Towers Room No.804,8Th Floor Vs. Dalal Street, Fort Old Cgo Building, Annex Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road,Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcu-0464-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

reassessment proceedings which stood abated as per section 153A(1). 7.5 In the present case. I find that there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was found in the course of search which would show any connection on disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.1,35,08000/- made by AO with the seized material which is the subject

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section 56 I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 Mr. Nilesh Bharani (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment