DCIT-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABDULSATTAR SULEMAN GHASWALA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of learned Assessing officer for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Abdulsattar Suleman Dcit-41(4)(1) Ghaswala Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 142/48 Ghaswala Estate Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(East) Vs. S V Road Jogeshwari(W) Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400102 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg9088R Co No. 83/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No. 1658/Mum/2023 For A.Y. 2013-14) Abdulsattar Suleman Ghaswala Dcit-41(4)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 142/48 Ghaswala Estate S V Road Jogeshwari(W) Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(East) Vs. Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400102 (Cross Objector/ Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg9088R

45(3) of the Act. On perusal of the return of the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not offered any capital gains and therefore, the reasons were recorded by the learned Assessing Officer stating that he has reason to believe that income to the extent

INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE vs. ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA, JOGESHWARI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer-10(2)(3) V. Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 142/48, Ghaswala Estate Room No-212, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Jogeshwari(W) M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aalpg9087A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri S.M. Makhija & : Ms. Manisha Ghind Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

section 45(3) was applicable in respect of such transfer made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. It was further held that the revaluation figure recorded in the books of accounts in the firm M/s. Salapuria Soft Zone as on March 31, 2008 was to be deemed as full value of consideration received or accruing

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment order passed by ld. A.O. 147 r.w.s.143(3) holding wrongly the said assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That the ld. Principal CIT while setting aside the assessment order has erred in erroneously applying the concept of accrual system of accounting in the case by overlooking the concept of real income theory

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

reassess the total income but there is a cap on the scope of additions in such assessment, being the items of income 'unearthed during the search'. In other words, the determination of 'total income' in respect of the assessment years for which the assessments are already completed on the date of search, shall not be influenced by the items

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

45(2) may be granted to the Appellant. 4. Addition on account of gifts treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act unjustified – 21,50,000/- i. The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O. in treating the gifts as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act without

SAMBHAVANATH INFRABUILD FARMS (SUCCESSOR TO LODHA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Cit– Central Circle – 7(3) {Successor To Lodha Construction Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aalcs1394M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

45,00,000/- 1% per month i.e. 12% K. Shah per annum The information contained in the above data is prima facie not reflected in the Return of Income filed by the assessee and thereby in the accounts of the assesses. I have therefore, reasons to believe that the income has escape assessment within the meaning of section

PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CIRCLE 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

Section 147 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding as,\ntill today, no asset of M/s. Kanha& Co. has been distributed as provided in\nSec. 45

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 158BB(1) would include material, information and evidence gathered as a result of post-search investigation on the basis of evidence found during the search or found as a result of search. Such information as would be available with the AO can be made the base for computation of undisclosed income of the block period. The term

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

reassessment is within the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 147. Explanation (1 ) to the said provision makes it clear that production of account books or other evidence from which the Assessing Officer could with due diligence discover material evidence would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso that stipulates an extended period

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, an assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year iod of four years from

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

reassessment is within the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 147. Explanation (1 ) to the said provision makes it clear that production of account books or other evidence from which the Assessing Officer could with due diligence discover material evidence would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso that stipulates an extended period

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

reassessment is within the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 147. Explanation (1 ) to the said provision makes it clear that production of account books or other evidence from which the Assessing Officer could with due diligence discover material evidence would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso that stipulates an extended period

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

45 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must