PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Reassessment was completed and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on 10/12/2019 determining the total income at 10/12/2019 determining the total income at ₹85,05, ,430. 4.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee filed Appeal before

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Reassessment was completed and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on 10/12/2019 determining the total income at 10/12/2019 determining the total income at ₹85,05, ,430. 4.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee filed Appeal before

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the\naddition of Rs.1,34,64,988 made under section 68 is directed to\nbe deleted and the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. The ground\nraised by the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the\naddition of Rs.1,34,64,988 made under section 68 is directed to\nbe deleted and the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. The ground\nraised by the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the\naddition of Rs.1,34,64,988 made under section 68 is directed to\nbe deleted and the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. The ground\nraised by the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the\naddition of Rs.1,34,64,988 made under section 68 is directed to\nbe deleted and the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. The ground\nraised by the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence