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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 147 of the Act without appreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in derivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee. 3. It is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has inadvertently filed two appeals for the same Assessment Year

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings\nunder section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the information\nreceived during the course of the search on another entity, therefore the AO\nwas duty bound to initiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Act\ninstead of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, in view of the non-\nobstante clause

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 can be issued u/s 148. Now on the facts of the present case, it is seen that the evidences found during the course of search and seizure operation in the case of the assessee and M/s Evergreen 23 I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 Mr. Nilesh Bharani Enterprises, wherein assessee was a partner that they have been giving cash loans to various

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings\nunder section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the information\nreceived during the course of the search on another entity, therefore the AO\nwas duty bound to initiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Act\ninstead of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, in view of the non-\nobstante clause

M/S EDELWISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Edelweiss Rural & Acit Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Cgo Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakcs 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement ___/03/2023 Order

reassessment and therefore the issue of M/s Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Ltd. M/s Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Ltd. 6 loss on sale of the jewelry below loss on sale of the jewelry below the market price was not the market price was not adjudicated being rendered as academic only. The learned consul adjudicated being rendered as academic only. The learne

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) was not strictly warranted, because the Assessing Officer could have made additions on the basis of the very material in the books and seized records without invoking best judgment provisions. He therefore held that the rejection of books was not justified in the facts of the case, although he accepted the broader factual narrative relating to the nature

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1), MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRESH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) was not strictly warranted, because the Assessing Officer could have made additions on the basis of the very material in the books and seized records without invoking best judgment provisions. He therefore held that the rejection of books was not justified in the facts of the case, although he accepted the broader factual narrative relating to the nature

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) was not strictly warranted, because the Assessing Officer could have made additions on the basis of the very material in the books and seized records without invoking best judgment provisions. He therefore held that the rejection of books was not justified in the facts of the case, although he accepted the broader factual narrative relating to the nature

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) was not strictly warranted, because the Assessing Officer could have made additions on the basis of the very material in the books and seized records without invoking best judgment provisions. He therefore held that the rejection of books was not justified in the facts of the case, although he accepted the broader factual narrative relating to the nature

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1), MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRIISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) was not strictly warranted, because the Assessing Officer could have made additions on the basis of the very material in the books and seized records without invoking best judgment provisions. He therefore held that the rejection of books was not justified in the facts of the case, although he accepted the broader factual narrative relating to the nature

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) was not strictly warranted, because the Assessing Officer could have made additions on the basis of the very material in the books and seized records without invoking best judgment provisions. He therefore held that the rejection of books was not justified in the facts of the case, although he accepted the broader factual narrative relating to the nature

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) was not strictly warranted, because the Assessing Officer could have made additions on the basis of the very material in the books and seized records without invoking best judgment provisions. He therefore held that the rejection of books was not justified in the facts of the case, although he accepted the broader factual narrative relating to the nature

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1), MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) was not strictly warranted, because the Assessing Officer could have made additions on the basis of the very material in the books and seized records without invoking best judgment provisions. He therefore held that the rejection of books was not justified in the facts of the case, although he accepted the broader factual narrative relating to the nature

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) was not strictly warranted, because the Assessing Officer could have made additions on the basis of the very material in the books and seized records without invoking best judgment provisions. He therefore held that the rejection of books was not justified in the facts of the case, although he accepted the broader factual narrative relating to the nature