DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SYSTEMATIX HOLDINGS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit-2(3)(1), M/S Systematix Holding R.No. 552, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, J K Somani Bldg. Mumbai-400020. British Hotel Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaics 4642 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Kabra Revenue By : Dr. Koshor Dule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer along with the issue on which the assessment proceedings were reopened, also issue on which the assessment proceedings were reopened, also issue on which the assessment proceedings were reopened, also added unsecured loans obtained by the assessee during the year unsecured loans obtained by the assessee during the year unsecured loans obtained by the assessee

KANAIYALAL B SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhkanaiyalal B. Shah Jcit Range-19(2), 31, Jai Bhavani Society, Mumbai. Vs. 3 Rr Thakker Marg, Mumbai-400006. Pan: Aahpk4505D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Divya Jeswant (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr)

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that no case for a reasonable cause has been made out by the Appellant under Section 273B of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is not the owner of the bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings under

EBRAHIM ESSA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-9(2)(4), 115 Dathawala Wstate, Sv Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jogeshwari West, 400 102. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 4720 E Appellant Respondent

133(6) remain un Assessing Officer was of the view that genuineness of the Assessing Officer was of the view that genuineness of the Assessing Officer was of the view that genuineness of the transaction was not proved. In view of above observation, the transaction was not proved. In view of above observation, the transaction was not proved. In view

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(6

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(6

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

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

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

6. Thereafter, the case of the Assessee was again reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018. Vide order, dated 24.12.2018, reassessment was framed on the Assessee at total income of INR 2,62,07,306/-. 7. Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was again reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated

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

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

reassessment proceedings, verification under section 133(6) was attempted in respect of the donee Trust; however, the 133(6) was attempted

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.GANDHAR YARN PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the name, address, PAN of share applicant. The assessee was also asked to furnish the share allotment certificates, confirmation from the parties to whom shares are allotted and details of bank transaction showing the amount received on account of share allotments. Further, notices under section 133(6

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

Section 133(6) of the Act to verify the lenders went unanswered, thereby reinforcing the to verify the lenders went unanswered, thereby reinfo to verify the lenders went unanswered, thereby reinfo inference that the loan transactions were not genuine. It is further inference that the loan transactions were not genuine. It is further inference that the loan transactions were

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

133(1) of the Act for 30 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 verification and genuineness of the loan. This request of the assessee was never considered by the learned Assessing Officer. In para 7 of the same application (page 19 of the paper-book) it has been claimed that the assessee

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

133(6) of the Act, to Esaar India Ltd., calling for information regarding the assessee, the same India Ltd., calling for information regarding the assessee, the same India Ltd., calling for information regarding the assessee, the same was returned back by the postal authoriti was returned back by the postal authorities with the remark es with the remark "receiver refused

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

M/S. PARAS PLASTIC PROCESSORS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-27(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

133(6) of the Act, but he also could not trace those parties at also could not trace those parties at the given address the given addresses. Accordingly the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate asked the assessee to substantiate the purchases by way of providing latest address of the parties, the purchases by way of providing

BHAGATRAM GODHWANI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagatram Godhwani, Income Tax Officer-10(3)(3), 165, 5-B, Sanjay Building No. 5, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Mital Industries Estate, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aabpg 3339 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

133(6) of the Act and section 131 of the Act issued for independent verification and when this fact was brought to the notice of the assessee, the onus shifted to the assessee and he was duty bound to discharge its onus by way of producing those parties before the Assessing Officer, but the assessee failed in doing