ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. KESHAV & COMPANY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

reassessment order is bad in law and should have been quashed; Computation of capital gain under section 45(4) of the Act 2 . erred in confirming the Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’) on retirement of partner from the Appellant firm to the extent of Rs.2,56,41,418/- as against no liability towards capital gain as per the Appellant; Applicability

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme; and (iii) the assessment orders are further invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 owing to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. The remaining grounds pertaining to interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

4,96,95,000, and under section 69A amounting to ₹2,50,000, cannot be upheld and are hereby deleted.\n\n42. Having disposed of the additions of merits, we now turn to legal ground concerning the validity of the assessment\n\n43\nITA No.3012/Mum/2025 and others\nThe Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others\nitself. Upon the submissions

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

4\n\nThe Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.\n\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal

EI BENEFICARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

3230/Mum/2025 Govind

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

4 The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced. The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal. 40. From

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

reassessment order void ab initio. Consequently, the PCIT's order under section 263, which was based on this void order, was also unsustainable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "139(4)", "143(1)", "143(3)", "148", "143(2)", "147", "144B", "234A", "234B

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

4\nThe Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.\n40. From

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

4) The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced. 5) The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal. E I Resorts & Clubs

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. E I RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

4) The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced. 5) The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal. E I Resorts & Clubs

GOVIND CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

4\n\nThe Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A and\n234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under\nsection 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially\nreduced.\n\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above\ngrounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

4\n\nThe Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A and\n234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under\nsection 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially\nreduced.\n\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above\ngrounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal

TARUN NANDKUMAR SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

4. The mere discovery of excel sheet and loose sheets\nwhich are not even prepared by the assessee and remain\nuncorroborated by any external evidence, cannot, by itself,\nform the sole basis for an addition. Particularly so when the\nauthorship and authenticity of such documents are in\ndispute. The Investigation Wing, which carries out the search,\nmay record statements

TARUN NANDKUMAR SEKSARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

4. The mere discovery of excel sheet and loose sheets\nwhich are not even prepared by the assessee and remain\nuncorroborated by any external evidence, cannot, by itself,\nform the sole basis for an addition. Particularly so when the\nauthorship and authenticity of such documents are in\ndispute. The Investigation Wing, which carries out the search,\nmay record statements

TARUN NANDKUMAR SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

4. The mere discovery of excel sheet and loose sheets\nwhich are not even prepared by the assessee and remain\nuncorroborated by any external evidence, cannot, by itself,\nform the sole basis for an addition. Particularly so when the\nauthorship and authenticity of such documents are in\ndispute. The Investigation Wing, which carries out the search,\nmay record statements

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “42. So, the amendment merely clarifies and makes explicit what

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “42. So, the amendment merely clarifies and makes explicit what

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “42. So, the amendment merely clarifies and makes explicit what

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “42. So, the amendment merely clarifies and makes explicit what

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “42. So, the amendment merely clarifies and makes explicit what