M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the Act shall abate. In the present case before us, however, though the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A would not apply

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total income was was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/ assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/-. In view of the assesse . In view of the assessed income, the Assessing Officer

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

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

reassessment as\nprescribed in sub-section (2) of section\n150 of the Act limitation provided\nunder section 149 of the Act has to be\ncounted from the end of relevant\n assessment year till date of order which\nis subject matter of appeal wherein\ndirections were passed.\"\nV. THE TRIBUNAL DO NOT HAVE POWER TO GIVE ANY FINDING OR\nDIRECTION

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

reassessment order the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income chargeable to tax. Subsequently, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the learned CIT (A) without any success. Order of learned CIT (A) was challenged before the co-ordinate

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

reassessment order the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income chargeable to tax. Subsequently, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the learned CIT (A) without any success. Order of learned CIT (A) was challenged before the co-ordinate

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order merely accepted the income as\ndeclared by the assessee in response to notice under section 148.\nThe alleged concealment, as computed by the Assessing Officer,\nis nothing but the difference between the originally returned loss\nand the revised loss. However, once the return filed under section\n148 has been accepted without further variation, there remains\nno addition

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

reassessment, if any,\nrelating to any assessment year falling within the period of\nsix assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) is\npending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the\nAct shall abate. In the present case before us, however,\nthough the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section\n153A would not apply

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are\npartly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

reassessment, if any,\nrelating to any assessment year falling within the period of\nsix assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) is\npending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the\nAct shall abate. In the present case before us, however,\nthough the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section\n153A would not apply

A.C..I.T. CIRCLE-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AWADHNARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN SINGH, MUMBAI

253 of 1961 Act) has held that 'finding' means the\nfinding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment year in question\nand the proviso to section 34(3) of the 1922 Act does not save time prescribed\nunder section 34(1) in respect of escaped assessment of any year other than\nthat which has been the subject matter

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post search\nscenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section\n148, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court's findings\nreinforce the departments position that the assessee's\nreliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra\nNote13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal\nis legally unsustainable.\nTherefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the\ndivergence in High Court rulings

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AWADHNARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the\nRevenue is dismissed

253 of 1961 Act) has held that 'finding' means the\nfinding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment year in question\nand the proviso to section 34(3) of the 1922 Act does not save time prescribed\nunder section 34(1) in respect of escaped assessment of any year other than\nthat which has been the subject matter

DCIT, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. SATISH JAGANNATH AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

253 CTR 80 wherein it is clearly held that "by virtue of section 158B-I the various provisions of Chapter XIV-B are made inapplicable to proceedings under section 153A/153C The effect of this is that while the provisions of Chapter XIV-B limit the inquiry by the Assessing Officer to those materials found during the search and seizure operation

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI.

1) of Section 117.\n16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional\nCommissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by\nthe judgments of various High Courts, which are as\nfollow:-\nI.\nDharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271\nITR 223 (All);\nII.\nArun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285\nITR 179 (All); and\nSmt.\nMaya\nRastogi