NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment stage nor at the appellate stage, has the assessee been able to produce satisfactory details sufficiency of assessee‟s additional evidence filed during appellate proceedings, adds weight to the specific findings given and lacunae pointed out in para supra due to which the peak credit in these accounts was held as taxable in India. In view of the above

JAWAHARLAL GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment stage nor at the appellate stage, has the assessee been able to produce satisfactory details sufficiency of assessee‟s additional evidence filed during appellate proceedings, adds weight to the specific findings given and lacunae pointed out in para supra due to which the peak credit in these accounts was held as taxable in India. In view of the above

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

SHAM GULABRAI TULSYANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

c) of the I. T. Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2012\n\ndated 12.06.2012 and the base note having mentioned that the appellant was a British National and the HSBC account was opened on 16.02.1994, there could be no reason to believe that

PARTAB GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

c) of the I. T. Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2012 dated 12.06.2012 and the base note having mentioned that the appellant was a British National and the HSBC account was opened on 16.02.1994, there could be no reason to believe that the income

NAYANKUMAR JAYANTILAL BALU,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

217,\nBC. Matru mamatir\nMumbai 400007.\nतारीख /Dated: 05.03.2015\nPAN: ADUPB2495B\nNOTICE U/S 271(1)(c)\nके संबंध में मेरे यहां होने वाली कार्रवाई के दौरान मुझे पतीत\nWhereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment Year 2009-10 it appears to\nme that You:-\n* बिना उचित कारण के वह आय विवरणी नहीं दी है जो

ITO -34(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MANOJ DINESHCHANDRA CHITALIYA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

217/- for the A.Y.2009-10. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information from the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai about the accommodation entries provided by various dealers and assessee was also one of the beneficiary from those dealers. Accordingly, assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and completed the re-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TMF HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

C Dinshaw Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.535, 5th Floor, Aaykar Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 PAN: AACCT4644A 020 CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Shri Lekh Mehta Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR Date of hearing : 08/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 18/07/2025

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

C D E F Joda Iron 56,000 1,722 0 56,000 9,64,32,000 West Mn 7,42,000 12,292 50,762 6,91,238 849,66,97,496 Bamebari Iron 68,000 1,722 0 68,000 117,0,96,000 Mn 0 0 Monmora Iron 4,800 1

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

C D E F Joda Iron 56,000 1,722 0 56,000 9,64,32,000 West Mn 7,42,000 12,292 50,762 6,91,238 849,66,97,496 Bamebari Iron 68,000 1,722 0 68,000 117,0,96,000 Mn 0 0 Monmora Iron 4,800 1