DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

40A(3) of the Act without giving any opportunity to rebut the evidences. giving any opportunity to rebut the evidences. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and in 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and in 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

40A(3) of the Act without giving any opportunity to rebut the evidences. giving any opportunity to rebut the evidences. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and in 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and in 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 have not been challenged on behalf of the Assessee. The appeals before the Tribunal are being pursued by the mother of the Appellant being his legal heir and duly constituted attorney of other ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

3 to 6 raised by the Assessee are \nallowed.\n65. Thus, appeal preferred by the Assessee [ITA \nNo.2616/Mum/2025] is partly allowed.\nITA No.2845/Mum/2024 [Revenue’s Appeal]\n& Cross Objection No.97/Mum/2024 [in Revenue’s \nAppeal]\n66. Now we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the \n Assessment Year 2012-2013 (ITA No.2845/Mum/2024) which is \ndirected against the Order

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 37(1) of the Act would not\napply. In this context, we respectfully agree with the\nobservations made by the coordinate Bench in case of\nMilestone Real Estate Fund (Supra). Pertinently, in case of\nM/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Mad.), identical issue of\ndisallowance of payment made to motor vehicle dealers\nu/s.37

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

3/- paid by\nthe assessee was to be amortized over the\nremaining period of three years. The basis behind\nthis Rule, in our humble understanding, is to value\nthe investment only at its face value which is what\nthe assessee would get at the end of the period\nand any excess paid over the face value while\nacquiring the security

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RUBBERWALA REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to\n2021-22 stands allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2018-19\nstands dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on this ...

reassess' to complete\nassessment proceedings.\nInsofar as pending assessments are concerned, the\njurisdiction to make the original assessment and the\nassessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one\n10\nITA No.3443 & Ors/Mum/2023\nA.Ys. 2015-16 to 2021-22\nRubberwala Realty\nassessment shall be made separately for each AY on the\nbasis of the findings of the search

PRAKASH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Appellant that provisions of Section 153(2A) of the Act would be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9.5. In view of the above, we hold that the order, dated 28/12/2016, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

40A(3), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 37(1), addition under section 68 in respect of unsecured loans and suspense credits, and addition under section 69A on account of negative cash balances. However, the entire reasoning of the Assessing Officer, as borne out from the assessment orders, proceeds on examination of the books of account, financial

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

40A(3), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 37(1), addition under section 68 in respect of unsecured loans and suspense credits, and addition under section 69A on account of negative cash balances. However, the entire reasoning of the Assessing Officer, as borne out from the assessment orders, proceeds on examination of the books of account, financial

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

40A(3), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 37(1), addition under section 68 in respect of unsecured loans and suspense credits, and addition under section 69A on account of negative cash balances. However, the entire reasoning of the Assessing Officer, as borne out from the assessment orders, proceeds on examination of the books of account, financial

M/S EDELWISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Edelweiss Rural & Acit Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Cgo Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakcs 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement ___/03/2023 Order

3. Before us the assessee also filed Before us the assessee also filed an additional ground on additional ground on 25/11/22 stating that impugned assessment order is barred by 25/11/22 stating that impugned assessment order is barred by 25/11/22 stating that impugned assessment order is barred by limitation as provided under section 153 of the ed under section

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

reassessment proceedings and there was no explanation of the source of expenditure incurred for making the bogus purchases, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Kanak Impex (supra) restored the addition made under section 69C of the Act. 11. Before considering the applicability of the ratio of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Kanak Impex (supra) to the present

ACIT CC-3, THANE, THANE vs. PREMIER MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Premier Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-3, 3Rd Floor, D Wing Thane Vs Amerchand Mansion, 16 Madam Cama Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400039 (Pan : Aahcp1350N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi Advocate & Shri Pratik Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri R. A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

40A(3). No incriminating evidence was found against the Assessee in the course of search operations, which fact is evident from the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. G 14/06/2024 Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A)-11 vide order dated 14/06/2024 allowed the Assessee’s appeal in toto