SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassess the same. Section\n153A of the Act reads as under:\n\"xx XX\"\n\n11.\nAs per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search\nunder section 132

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassess the same. Section\n153A of the Act reads as under:\n\"xx XX\"\n11.\nAs per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search\nunder section 132

DEEPAK KAKUBHAI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

reassess taking\ninto consideration the other material in respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition\ncan be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search under Section\n132 or requisition under Section 132

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. As per sub-section (2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath , 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath , 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath , 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement

MISHRA GANESHA RAM ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansar Shri Imran Ansari

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or rued as reference to the date of receiving the books of account