BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

section 260A of the Act. Even otherwise, an order passed by the IT of the Act. Even otherwise, an order passed by the ITAT would not be AT would not be relevant when the validity of the re- assessment is being examined by this relevant when the validity of the re assessment is being examined by this Court

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

reassessment proceedings, it may be clearly seen that the AO nowhere raised any query regarding the genuineness of the transaction relating to the receipt of the aforesaid share premium to the extent of Rs. 32,21,48,679. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the comments of the AO in the Remand Report that the appellant did not furnish

KONARK FIXTURES LTD( SUCCESSOR TO KALINGA FIXTURES PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act would\nnot at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out\nby the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT\nAppeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of\nthe Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the\nrecords. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA MOTORS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

reassessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 31 December 2007. Tribunal further observed that there was no scope left with the CIT(A) to enhance the very same items in the appellate proceedings pending before him against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the premise was that the interest

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KHIMJI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the records. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. KHIMJI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the records. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KHIMJI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the records. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S LOTUS LOGISTICS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the records. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. DEVELOPERS AND REALTORS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the records. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been

DCIT - CC -7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the records. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act 1961") is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench dated 20-2-2020 in the ITA No.549/Ahd/2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue has proposed the following question of law for the consideration

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been filed challenging the order dated January 17, 2022, passed by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'SMC' Lucknow in IT. A. No. 205 of 2020 (assessment year 2014-15). The basic question involved in the present appeal is with regard to deletion of some amount which was added

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." 12. The sub-section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by the Finance

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

reassess\nunder section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee\nunder section 154, for any assessment year\nbeginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.\"\n12. The sub-section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main\nsection by the Finance

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

reassess \nunder section 147 or pass an order enhancing the \nassessment or reducing a refund already made or \notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee \nunder section 154, for any assessment year \nbeginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.\" \n12. The sub-section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main \nsection by the Finance

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, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed as well as Cross Objections of the assessee are\ndismissed as infructuous

260A of the\nAct.\"\n9.8.4 This is supported by the decision of decision of Delhi High\nCourt in the case of CIT Vs Harjeev Agarwal reported in 241\nTaxman 199 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the\nitself does not constitute incriminating material The relevant\nfinding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD , MUMBAI

260A of the Act.\"\n9.8.4 This is supported by the decision of decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Harjeev Agarwal reported in 241 Taxman 199 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself does not constitute incriminating material The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD , ANDHERI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed as well as Cross Objections of the assessee are\ndismissed as infructuous

260A of the\nAct.\"\n9.8.4 This is supported by the decision of decision of Delhi High\nCourt in the case of CIT Vs Harjeev Agarwal reported in 241\nТахтап 199 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the\nitself does not constitute incriminating material The relevant\nfinding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under