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 ()

4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate 9. We noticed that

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 ()

4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate 9. We noticed that

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 ()

4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate 9. We noticed that

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

4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the We noticed that

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

4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the We noticed that

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

4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the We noticed that

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

4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the We noticed that

DCIT CC -7(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. DEWAL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings u/s 132 of the Act establish that the reliefs granted under the finalized assessment/reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of search operation. Further, upon perusal of SLP No. 18560 of 2015 dated 12/10/2015 admitted by Hon'ble Supreme Court against

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A of the 1961 Act.‖ 42. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A of the 1961 Act.‖ 42. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents, as required by such

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents, as required by such

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents, as required by such

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

4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents, as required by such

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

4) of section 22 of the ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

4. On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassess challenged the validity of the reassessment as well as merit of the ment as well as merit of the addition

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A of the 1961 Act. However

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A of the 1961 Act. However

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A of the 1961 Act. However