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

132 of the Act or requisition\nmade under Section 132A of the Act, in respect of a person\nother than the assessee. This is subject to the same having a\nbearing on the determination of income of the assessee. The\nAO is neither require to record reasons for his belief that the\nincome of the assessee for the concerned assessment

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

132 of the Act or requisition\nmade under Section 132A of the Act, in respect of a person\nother than the assessee. This is subject to the same having a\nbearing on the determination of income of the assessee. The\nAO is neither require to record reasons for his belief that the\nincome of the assessee for the concerned assessment

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 ()

5. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found or seized during the course of search

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 ()

5. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found or seized during the course of search

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 ()

5. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found or seized during the course of search

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

132 had taken place on 06.10.2017, the 23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

132 had taken place on 06.10.2017, the 23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

132 had taken place on 06.10.2017, the 23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

132 had taken place on 06.10.2017, the 23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

132 had taken place on 06.10.2017, the 23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

132 had taken place on 06.10.2017, the 23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

132 had taken place on 06.10.2017, the 23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening

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 of the Act ,only recourse available with him was section 153C of the Act. 7.1 It is worthwhile to mention here that the coordinate Bench of Mumbai ITAT in certain recent decisions have taken similar view in the light of the judgement in the case of Sejal Jewls(supra) i.e.Parshwa Investment ,Mumbai in ITA No.1429/Mum/2025 dated 30 June

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

5. Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. It was recorded in the 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

5. Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. It was recorded in the 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

5. Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. It was recorded in the 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

5. Relying upon the above material and the statements of Relying upon the above material and the statements of Relying upon the above material and the statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. The Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC 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 ()

5,43,04,954/- for AY 2014 for AY 2014-15 and Rs. 8,44,60,000 for AY 2015 8,44,60,000 for AY 2015-16 in respect of the acquisition of immovable 16 in respect of the acquisition of immovable properties from the said real properties from the said real-estate developer. Secondly, the informatio Secondly

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 ()

5,43,04,954/- for AY 2014 for AY 2014-15 and Rs. 8,44,60,000 for AY 2015 8,44,60,000 for AY 2015-16 in respect of the acquisition of immovable 16 in respect of the acquisition of immovable properties from the said real properties from the said real-estate developer. Secondly, the informatio Secondly