HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

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

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

RITESH SINGH ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. TREND ELECTRONICS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

32A and other provisions of IBC,\nit is apparent that the legislative intent behind liquidation sale process is to\nensure that the successful acquirer starts from a clean slate. This is also in line\nwith the general objective of IBC (as occurring in its preamble) to maximize\nvalue of assets of persons under liquidation, to promote entrepreneurship and\nbalance

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

NAVNITLAL K PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2004-05 Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh, Acit, F-2, 77 & 78 Gujrati Society Cc-45, बनाम/ Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400057 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaccp6245F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shailesh Parmar Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh

reassessment of total income in search cases, section 153B prescribes the time limit for completion of assessment under sec. 153A. Section 153C relates to the cases where books of accounts or documents or assets seized under sec. 132 or requisition made under sec. 1 32A

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book profit

ACIT (CC)-8(2) , MUMBAI vs. HELIOS EXPORTS LTD, MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

CITRON INFRAPROJECT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400005 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CITRON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRIVALLAB PITTE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CITRON INFRAPROJECTS LTD , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

32A in the case of Shrivallabh Pittie Southwest Industries, Shrivallabh Pittie Industries Limited and SVP Global Limited in AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. l. In the case of Platinum Textiles Limited, Shrivallabh Pittie Industries Limited, and SVP Global Textiles SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors Limited, for AY 2017-18, returned loss has been

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

32A in the case of Shrivallabh Pittie Southwest Industries, Shrivallabh Pittie Industries Limited and SVP Global Limited in AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. l. In the case of Platinum Textiles Limited, Shrivallabh Pittie Industries Limited, and SVP Global Textiles SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors Limited, for AY 2017-18, returned loss has been