JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

section 37(1) of the Act.\n2.3. During the reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee\nsubmitted that it was not engaged in the business

GALDERMA INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT - 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. Acit-9(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Nestle Skin Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Health India Pvt. Ltd.), Road, Lotus Corporate Park, D Wing, Mumbai-400020. Unit 801 & 802, Graham Firth Steel Compound, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aacg 8660 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-1(3)(1), M/S Galderma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, (Previously Known As M/S Mestle Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Skin Health India Pvt. Ltd.), Road, Lotus Corporate Park, ‘D’ Wing, Mumbai-400020. Unit 801 & 802, Graham Firth Steel Compound, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aacg 8660 M Appellant Respondent

Section 37(1) will not be applicable in 7(1) will not be applicable in respect to payments of Rs. 97,93,996/ respect to payments of Rs. 97,93,996/-. Keeping in view . Keeping in view the facts of the case, expenditure for an amount of the facts of the case, expenditure for an amount of the facts

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 37(1

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 37(1

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 37(1

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 37(1

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 37(1

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 37(1

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

37,38,756 + 1,50,000) represents interest which was credited to P & L Ac in earlier & subsequent years. credited to P & L Ac in earlier & subsequent years. credited to P & L Ac in earlier & subsequent years. Thus to this extent the addition by A amounts to double addition of this extent the addition by A amounts to double addition

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

37,38,756 + 1,50,000) represents interest which was credited to P & L Ac in earlier & subsequent years. credited to P & L Ac in earlier & subsequent years. credited to P & L Ac in earlier & subsequent years. Thus to this extent the addition by A amounts to double addition of this extent the addition by A amounts to double addition

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

section 37(1) of the Act.\n2.3. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee\nsubmitted that it was not engaged in the business

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

37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation-2 to section 153A as\namended

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

37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation-2 to section 153A as\namended

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

37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation-2 to section 153A as\namended

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

37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation-2 to section 153A as\namended

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

37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation-2 to section 153A as\namended

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

37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre condition\nfor assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation-2 to section 153A as\namended

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

37(1) and unsecured loan U/s 68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1) r/w Explanation-2 to section 153A as\namended