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

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

3. Before us the assessee also filed Before us the assessee also filed an additional ground on additional ground on 25/11/22 stating that impugned assessment order is barred by 25/11/22 stating that impugned assessment order is barred by 25/11/22 stating that impugned assessment order is barred by limitation as provided under section 153 of the ed under section

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

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

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

section 147 of the Act without\nappreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in\nderivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee.\n\n3.\nIt is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has\ninadvertently filed two appeals for the same Assessment Year, i.e.,\n2016

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 have not been challenged on behalf of the Assessee. The appeals before the Tribunal are being pursued by the mother of the Appellant being his legal heir and duly constituted attorney of other ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

section 147 of the Act without\nappreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in\nderivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee.\n\n3.\nIt is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has\ninadvertently filed two appeals for the same Assessment Year, i.e.,\n2016

PINKAL DILIP BHANSALI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12

145(3). The addition was made in full, and penalty proceedings under section addition was made in full, and penalty proceedings under section addition was made in full, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated separately. 271(1)(c) were initiated separately. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) r On further appeal

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

reassessment proceedings. GROUND-3 That the Ld. A.O. erred in law and on the facts of the case by 3 That the Ld. A.O. erred in law and on the facts of the case by not 3 That the Ld. A.O. erred in law and on the facts of the case by appreciating facts of the case in order

M/S JASMINE COMPUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Circle 4(3)(1), Sh-1, Building 2A Wing, Pooja Nagar, Mumbai-401107. Vs. Cross Cabin Road, Bhayandar East, Thane, Mira Road S.O., Chimane, Thane-401107. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., 649, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. A 13 4Th Floor, Silver Oak, Bhatt Lane Vs. Road, Poisar Borivali West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent

Section 145(3) of the Act but has only challenged the gross profit rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], while the Revenue is aggrieved by the Tax (Appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JASMINE COMPUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Circle 4(3)(1), Sh-1, Building 2A Wing, Pooja Nagar, Mumbai-401107. Vs. Cross Cabin Road, Bhayandar East, Thane, Mira Road S.O., Chimane, Thane-401107. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., 649, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. A 13 4Th Floor, Silver Oak, Bhatt Lane Vs. Road, Poisar Borivali West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent

Section 145(3) of the Act but has only challenged the gross profit rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income rate of 3% as sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], while the Revenue is aggrieved by the Tax (Appeals

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

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

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