KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

GOLDEN ROSACEAE REALTORS,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KALYAN

In the result, the present Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated which culminated into the Assessment Year: 2016-17 order, dated 23/03/2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. By way of the aforesaid order, the income of the Appellant was assessed by INR 2,56,00,000/- after making addition

PHILOMENA PAUL FERNANDESV ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSEMENT CENTRE (ITO WARD 22(2)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2017-18

section 249(4) of the Act shall apply to original return of income required to be filed u/s. 139 of the Act and the same will not apply to the reassessment

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order does not survive for reasons stated herein above, grounds of appeal raised on merits does not require separate adjudication. However, issues involved in present appeal are also found in other assessment years appeal heard by this bench, hence considering such facts, other grounds of appeal as raised by assessee are also discussed on merits in subsequent paras

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order does not survive for reasons stated herein above, grounds of appeal raised on merits does not require separate adjudication. However, issues involved in present appeal are also found in other assessment years appeal heard by this bench, hence considering such facts, other grounds of appeal as raised by assessee are also discussed on merits in subsequent paras

SUSHMA HARESH UBALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

249(4) of the Act and wrongly interpreting the provisions of the said section read with S.234B and 208 of the act. c) The learned CIT(A) ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to give response to the applicability of the provisions of S.294(b) of the act. The natural justice requires that the proper opportunity

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

VIJAY MANEKLAL BHANSALI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

4, the assessee has agitated the action taken u/s 147/148 of the Act by claiming that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not made any additions based on the recorded reasons and also the objections raised to reasons were not disposed of by the AO. Hence the reassessment is bad in law. 5. It is submitted by the ld.AR that

PRAVIN KHETARAM PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

249 ITR) held that assessment orders must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of setting out his case. In our case, surprisingly till date we are not aware as to what is the basis of the allegation levelled against us 15. In the matter of Dhananjay kumar Singh (402 ITR 91) the Hon’ble Patna

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground