SAMADHAN KRISHNA KATEKAR,RAIGAD vs. ITO WD 3 PANVEL, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshmr. Samadhan Krishna Ito. Ward-3, Katekar, L/H Of Late Krishna Vs. Panvel Range, Trifed Tower, Kathari Katekar, Opp. Khanda Colony, At Dhutum, Taluka-Uran, Navi Mumbai-410206. District-Raigad. Pan: Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Prakash Pandit (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement :12.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (Act) Is Directed Against

reassessment proceedings against assessee, section 159 would not applicable to instant case and, therefore impugned notice was liable to be set aside. 18. Similarly, Delhi High Court in Rajinder Kumar Sehgal Vs ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.] The first proviso to Section 149 of the Act provides that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any point of time in a case for a relevant

SURESH L. SATYANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

233, Ground Floor, Navtara, Girgaim, Mumbai. It was found that the actual importers of rough diamonds import part of the diamonds from benami concerns operated by Banwarlal Jain and family with a view to suppress their turnover and profit. The consignments were sent on credit by the suppliers in the name of benami concerns at the instance of actual importer

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is quashed, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009-10 will not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 14. Now we take up the appeal in ITA.No. 3455/Mum/2017 for the A.Y.2012-13. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is quashed, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009-10 will not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 14. Now we take up the appeal in ITA.No. 3455/Mum/2017 for the A.Y.2012-13. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order