ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

53A r.w.s 143(3) on 24.12.08 by a consolidated Asstt. Order for Asstt. Years 2001-02 to 2007- 08, wherein addition was made on account of sale proceeds of shares u/s.68 of I.T. Act. 6. It was argued by Ld. A.R. that the entire assessment for all the years under appeal passed under section 153A in the assessee’s case

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

53A r.w.s 143(3) on 24.12.08 by a consolidated Asstt. Order for Asstt. Years 2001-02 to 2007- 08, wherein addition was made on account of sale proceeds of shares u/s.68 of I.T. Act. 6. It was argued by Ld. A.R. that the entire assessment for all the years under appeal passed under section 153A in the assessee’s case

M/S. SIMTOOLS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3) ( EARSTWHILE DCIT- CENT. CIR-42), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

53A r.w.s. 153C vide order dated 24 April 2015. A copy of the order of CIT(A)-48 is attached as Annexure 2. The order of CIT(A) was subsequently challenged by the department before the Mumbai Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 28 July 2017 has upheld the decision of CIT(A) that the action

KAY FOAM LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed

reassessment order had already merged with the appellate order; (iii) The assessment order framed was not “erroneous” within the meaning of section 263 of the Act; and (iv) In any case, the assessment order was not “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue” within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. ITA. No. 598/Mum/2021 Assessment Year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RISHABRAJ INFRA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 3246/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2015-16) Acit, C.Circle -2(1), Vs. Rishabraj Infrapvtltd., Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 212, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Bldg No. 3, Hari Om Mumbai – 400020. Plaza, Mg Road, Boravali (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcv2975P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Riddhi Mishra.Dr Revenue By : Mr.Karan Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

53A by the AC is without jurisdiction and bad in law as the jurisdiction u/s. 153A is vitiated; and (ii) the additions made by the AC arc beyond the scope of provisions of section 153A. 2.a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

DCIT- CC- 6(4), MUMBAI vs. SMT. DIVYA SAMEER GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1428/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ Smt. Divya Sameer Tax, Gehlaut Vs. Central Circle 6(4), 17Th Floor, Tower 1, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Indianbulls Finance Air India Building, Centre, Senapati Bapat Nariman Point, Marg, Elphinstone Mumbai-400021 Road, Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajbpg2722R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri .Om Kandalkar Revenue By: Shri. T Sankar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

reassessments already finalised for those assessment years covered under section 53A By a Circular No. 8 of 2003, dated 19-9-2003 (See 263 ITR (St) 61 at 107) the CBDT

NAVKETAN PREMISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

53A were fulfilled the agreement was in writing, signed, and consideration was fully paid. Possession had already been handed over to the transferee, who was ready and willing to perform their part. Accordingly, the transaction stood concluded in July 2013, i.e. during AY 2014–15. 12. He further submitted that section 43CA(3) and (4) clearly provide that where

SHRI GANADHIRAJ CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) -40, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the property was purchased and occupied by the assessee society since 1969. As the seller of the property had expired, the conveyance deed of the property was not executed in its favour by the legal heirs of the seller and therefore, the name of the society was not entered in M/s. Shri Ganadhiraj Co– Operative

SANJAY BABAN VAITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10

53A of the Transfer of Property Act were not fulfilled. not fulfilled. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not considering

BALASORE ALLOYS LTD,ORRISSA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 18 & 19, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and that both of assessee, all are dismissed

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

section 153A of the Act can be made only on the basis of seized material wherever the assessment have not abated. For this Revenue has raised following grounds: - “1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment u/s 53A does not entail fresh assessment

BALASORE ALLOYS LTD,ORRISSA vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and that both of assessee, all are dismissed

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

section 153A of the Act can be made only on the basis of seized material wherever the assessment have not abated. For this Revenue has raised following grounds: - “1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment u/s 53A does not entail fresh assessment

ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI vs. BALASORE ALLOYS LTD, ODISHA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and that both of assessee, all are dismissed

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

section 153A of the Act can be made only on the basis of seized material wherever the assessment have not abated. For this Revenue has raised following grounds: - “1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment u/s 53A does not entail fresh assessment

VINA VIREN AHUJA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

53A provides for abatement of assessment/reassessment proceedings which are pending on the date of search/requisition. Section 153A (2) provides that when the assessment made under Section 153(A)(1)is annulled, the assessment or reassessment

VEENA M DALAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD II) CR 7, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Veena M. Dalal, Dcit(Osd Ii), Central Range-7, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, 42, Chitrakoot, Altamount Road, Vs. 101 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026. Pan: Acbpd4089R (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment completed. 2. On Facts and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing exemption under Section 54 F of the Income tax Act 1961, (the act). 3. On facts and in law, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Goa property was not transferred during the year and thereby erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD , MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 were satisfied, as the development agreement was registered, irrevocable and possession was constructively parted with, thereby constituting a transfer in the year under consideration. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal despite the fact that the assessee had not filed any return of income voluntarily under section