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)

section 43CA is not applicable to the assessee as the asses purchased the property for which consideration has been paid. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not going into the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on technical ground u/s 249(4)(b) without appreciating the fact

MR RAHAT MOHAMMED RIYAZUDDIN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

249 contemplates that the CIT(A) may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period, if he is satisfied that there was a “sufficient cause” for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, it has been 6 Rahat Mohammed Riyazuddin Shaikh, AY 2017-18 used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

249 (Bombay HC); Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v/s. DCIT [2018] 257 Taxman 442 (Bombay HC); and PCIT v/s. Andrew Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 144 of 2017](Bombay HC at Goa] 8. In sum and substance, the assessee has submitted as under:- a) The Appellant is not an 'eligible assessee' in terms of section 144C(15)(b

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

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

reassessment which is done for the benefit of Revenue. Hence, in our view, clause (b) of Section 249(4) of the Act will

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

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

249 (Bombay HC); Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v/s. DCIT [2018] 257 Taxman 442 (Bombay HC); and PCIT v/s. Andrew Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 144 of 2017](Bombay HC at Goa] 8. In sum and substance, the assessee has submitted as under:- a) The Appellant is not an 'eligible assessee' in terms of section 144C(15)(b

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

249 r.w.s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 4. The Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 07.03.2024 is bad in law. Therefore, should be set aside. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,47,790/- made by the Ld.AO, being unexplained money

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

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