ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for

section 43AA r.w.s. 145(2) of the\nAct upheld the validity of the reassessment on the reasoning that\nAssessing Officer

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

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post search\nscenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section\n148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings\nreinforce the departments position that the assessee's\nreliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra\nNote13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal\nis legally unsustainable.\nTherefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the\ndivergence in High Court rulings

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

reassessment\nproceedings are void, illegal and ought to be set aside. It is evidently a\ncase of change of opinion which is not permissible under the law.\n5. Facts of the case in brief are that original assessment order was\nframed u/s 143(3) on 17.12.2018. Later it was found by the AO that the\nassessee during the year

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post search\nscenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section\n148, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court's findings\nreinforce the departments position that the assessee's\nreliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra\nNote13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal\nis legally unsustainable.\nTherefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the\ndivergence in High Court rulings

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

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post search\nscenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section\n148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings\nreinforce the departments position that the assessee's\nreliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra\nNote13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal\nis legally unsustainable.\nTherefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the\ndivergence in High Court rulings

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- LTU 2, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for

section 43AA r.w.s. 145(2) of the\nAct upheld the validity of the reassessment on the reasoning that\nAssessing Officer

PANKAJ DHANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-22(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

reassessment order passed under\nsection 147 read with section 144B of The Income Tax Act, 1961\n(The Act) on 6/11/2023 by the National Faceless Assessment\nCentre (the learned AO) dated 6/11/2023, was dismissed.\n2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before\nus raising following grounds.\n1.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case

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

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

2, in brief, are as under. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 27/11/2015. The return was processed under Section 143(1) the Act. Thereafter, a search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the Assessee and search assessment was framed on the Assessee vide order, dated 29/12/2017

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

145(3) was completed on 24.03.2014 at\nan assessed income of Rs.67,47,150/-.\n2. Subsequently, in this case, information was received from the DDIT\n(Inv.) Unit-5(4) Mumbai vide letter dated 19.03.2018 that during the course of\nsearch/survey u/s 132/133A in the case of M/s.Sunshine Housing &\nInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and its group concern has been conducted

BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

2) of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides that where total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section (s) 68/69/69A/698/69C/69D of the Act, no deduction in respect of any section (s) 68/69/69A/698/69C/69D of the Act, no deduction in respect of any section