ABHUBHAI HIRABHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "147", "148", "153C", "153A", "132", "133(6)", "143(3)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D", "271(1)(c)" ], "issues": "Whether the AO erred in initiating reassessment

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, the same is shown as Rs. 12,34,980. Further, the Revenue has pointed out various discrepancies in the aforesaid invoices as noted in the orders passed by the lower authorities. It is evident from the record that in order to examine the genuineness of the claim of the assessee, notice under section 133

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, the same is shown as Rs. 12,34,980. Further, the Revenue has pointed out various discrepancies in the aforesaid invoices as noted in the orders passed by the lower authorities. It is evident from the record that in order to examine the genuineness of the claim of the assessee, notice under section 133

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

BHUVNESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX P-CIT,MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited Pcit,Mumbai-1 710/A Wing Dattani Plaza Room No. 330, 3 R D Floor, Aayakar Vs. Commercial Premises, Safed Pool, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb4386N

section 133 (6) during the course of assessment proceedings on several occasions. He further referred to the copies of the balance sheet of all the subscribers of said capital's which were also submitted earlier at the time of reassessment

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-23(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ANMOL JEWELLERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

133(6) of the Act to Mr. Sunil Datwani (Partner of Anmol Jewellers) asking him to furnish relevant details so as to verify the genuineness of the transactions entered with the assessee firm. However, nothing substantial was provide Mr. Sunil Datwani. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) not consider

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)

reassessment, then he makes an assessment / reassessment of such income u/s 153A of the Act. 65. Now, the entire procedure is the same except under different sections having two separate contingencies. In our opinion, the Legislature has not left any discretion on the revenue officers to make the assessment /reassessment under any of the said set of provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

KAISHAR INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly Ground No.16 raised by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and dismiss Grounds No.2 to 7 raised by the Assessee as being without merit. Ground No.8 to 14 13. Ground No.8 to 14 raised by the Assessee raised by the Assessee are directed against the disallowance to the extent of INR.39,25,193/- confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) treating the same

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

reassessment proceeding are no more valid and any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the Act would be bad in law. be bad in law. 5.4 The Assessing Officer accordingly The Assessing

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

reassessment proceeding are no more valid and any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the Act would be bad in law. be bad in law. 5.4 The Assessing Officer accordingly The Assessing

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

reassessment proceeding are no more valid and any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the Act would be bad in law. be bad in law. 5.4 The Assessing Officer accordingly The Assessing

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

reassessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the act on 29/12/2017 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,461,230/–. 12. Assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) challenging the reopening of the assessment as well as the additions on the merits of the case, the learned

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify sale consideration of ₹2,30,01, the assessee to justify sale consideration of 01,500/-received as genuine. The Assessing on sale of shares of on sale of shares of “Essar (India) Ltd’ as genuine. The Assessing Officer referred to the investigation carried out by Officer referred to the investigation

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessment order, and the demand notice were quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "151", "147", "148", "149", "133(6)", "44AD