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

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. COFFER CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., TARDEO

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1) of the Act which says that actual cost means the actual cost of the assets to\nthe assessee. Even this can be done only when after the waiver of the loan which was\nused to acquire machinery. By that time if the assessments for that AY gets barred by\ntime, the revenue is without any remedy. Even the provisions

SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassess. But\nreassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain preconditions and if the\nconcept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the\nDepartment, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take\nplace. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to\ncheck abuse of power

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassess. But\nreassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain preconditions and if the\nconcept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the\nDepartment, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take\nplace. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to\ncheck abuse of power

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

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

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. 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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

ELSIE HUBALD,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

43,67,491/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and also added a sum of Rs. 19,49,500/- as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed its objections before the DRP against the draft assessment order passed by the AO. The DRP deleted the addition made towards unexplained cash credit

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to 11 Patanjali Foods Ltd, Mumbai. in sub-section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the Act shall abate. In the present case before us, however, though the second proviso to sub-section (1

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to 11 Patanjali Foods Ltd, Mumbai. in sub-section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the Act shall abate. In the present case before us, however, though the second proviso to sub-section (1