VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

DY CIT CC 6(4) , MUMBAI vs. SMT. DEVAL D THAKKAR [NOW KNOWN AS SMT DEVAL E ANTHONY], MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

reassessment proposed on the basis of order of Court in proceedings under Land Acquisition Act could be commenced even though the original assessments for the relevant years in question have attained finality on expiry of period of limitation under Section 149 of the Act. On a combined reading of sub-section (1) as amended with effect from

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

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

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

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

43,60,000/- on account of Alleged Unexplained Investments. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said addition made by the Ld. A.O. is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A. O. erred in disallowing

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

43,883/- and under minimum alternative tax (MAT) provisions of section and under minimum alternative tax (MAT) provisions of section and under minimum alternative tax (MAT) provisions of section 115JB at ₹2,955,93,53,702/ 93,53,702/-. 3.1 Subsequently, pursuant to an audit objection, the Assessing pursuant to an audit objection, the Assessing pursuant to an audit objection

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

1. Whether on facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld' CIT(A) Whether on facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld' CIT(A) Whether on facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld' CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by quashing the has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by quashing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

1. Whether on facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld' CIT(A) Whether on facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld' CIT(A) Whether on facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld' CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by quashing the has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by quashing

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

43,39,857/-. 5. Thereafter, notice under Section 263(1) of the Act was issued to the Appellant. The relevant extract of the notice read as under: ―3. From the available records, it is seen that, while conducting enquiry in the subsequent assessment year i.e., AY 2018-19, in response to a specific query raised, with respect to the Interest

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

reassessment can be made. The word „assess‟ in Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word „reassess‟ to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

reassessment can be made. The word „assess‟ in Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word „reassess‟ to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

reassessment can be made. The word „assess‟ in Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word „reassess‟ to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

43 Mr. Binod Kumar Singh or commercial sense as distinct from their scientific or technical meaning unless a contrary intention appears. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs State of Punjab has held on July 25, 2001 that even the meaning of the words not defined in the Statutes should be assigned after reading

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

43. He further stated that similarly, the Memoranda vide clause (36) therein explaining the proposed amendment by the Finance Bill, 2015 in the definition of 153C of the Act also does not at all state anywhere that it was applicable only in respect of the searches initiated w.e.f. 01/06/2015, particularly when there was no corresponding amendment in the section 153A

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)

43,873 as commission income, both treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 2013–14 Rs.2,72,50,751 disallowed under section 37(1) and Rs.2,05,000 treated as unexplained loan under section 68 2014–15 Rs.4,98,90,418 disallowed under section 37(1) and Rs.1,34,64,988 treated as CIT(A) 16. It is evident