SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

40A(3) of the Act. CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not manifest cash sales but these are unaccounted cash financial manifest cash sales but these are unaccounted

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

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

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

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

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

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on suspicion. The assessee has also ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 3 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. filed written submissions, which are kept on record. The Ld. counsel reiterated its submissions, mentioned in the written submissions. Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book/written submissions by claiming that

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on suspicion. The assessee has also ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 3 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. filed written submissions, which are kept on record. The Ld. counsel reiterated its submissions, mentioned in the written submissions. Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book/written submissions by claiming that

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on suspicion. The assessee has also ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 3 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. filed written submissions, which are kept on record. The Ld. counsel reiterated its submissions, mentioned in the written submissions. Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book/written submissions by claiming that

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on suspicion. The assessee has also ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 3 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. filed written submissions, which are kept on record. The Ld. counsel reiterated its submissions, mentioned in the written submissions. Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book/written submissions by claiming that

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on suspicion. The assessee has also ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 3 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. filed written submissions, which are kept on record. The Ld. counsel reiterated its submissions, mentioned in the written submissions. Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book/written submissions by claiming that

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on suspicion. The assessee has also ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 3 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. filed written submissions, which are kept on record. The Ld. counsel reiterated its submissions, mentioned in the written submissions. Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book/written submissions by claiming that

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has made disallowance of the following items: - (a) excess remunerations disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. (b) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Act amounting

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has made disallowance of the following items: - (a) excess remunerations disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. (b) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Act amounting