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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to ITA Nos.2183 to 2186/Mum/2013 & M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

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

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

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

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under 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\"\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

SAMBHAVANATH INFRABUILD FARMS (SUCCESSOR TO LODHA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Cit– Central Circle – 7(3) {Successor To Lodha Construction Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aalcs1394M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

132 or requisition shall not abate. Save as otherwise provided in the proposed section 153A, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment or reassessment

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