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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED -INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

548,335\nOther Method\n(Sec Nald 4 below)\n16\nHSBC Bank Plc.\n8 Canada Square London E14\nSHOUnited Kingdom\nInterest paid/payable on\ncall term borrowing\n(See Note\nVaries\n1,140,857\n1,140,857\nOllier Methad\n(See Note 4 below)\n1 Below)\n17\nISBC Private Bank (Suisse)\nPostal E 3580.2 Qual General\nGuisan Ch 1211 Geneva

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

548 (Bom)], wherein it was unequivocally held that once the claim for deduction under section 80-IA/80-IB has been allowed in the initial year, and such relief has not been withdrawn, the deduction for subsequent years cannot be denied on the same grounds. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that in the absence of any action to withdraw the relief granted

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA MOTORS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

reassessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 31 December 2007. Tribunal further observed that there was no scope left with the CIT(A) to enhance the very same items in the appellate proceedings pending before him against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the premise was that the interest

NAKODA METAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

548 Premier Enterprises 5. 2,62,436 Key Stone Tubes P Ltd. 6. 12,22,060 Satyanarayan Steel & Engg. P Ltd. 7. 3,35,556 Nimesh Steels P Ltd. 8. 12,54,240 Red Rose Steels P Ltd. 9. 4,64,100 Mercury Metal Corporation 10. 38,92,762 Bohra Metal Industries 11. 2,39,096 Nayan Steel Centre

JORSS BULLION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Reassessment limitation effect of Section 149(1)(b) - period\nextended where alleged escaped income exceeds prescribed\nlimit Section 149 does not override provisions of section 147-\nnotice after four years failure to disclose material facts\nnecessary for assessment must exist.\"\n(ii) Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd. V/s. DCIT[2018] 95 taxmann.com\n225 Karnataka. The catch-note is reproduced

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. JORSS BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Reassessment limitation effect of Section 149(1)(b) - period\nextended where alleged escaped income exceeds prescribed\nlimit Section 149 does not override provisions of section 147-\nnotice after four years failure to disclose material facts\nnecessary for assessment must exist.\"\n(ii) Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd. V/s. DCIT[2018] 95 taxmann.com\n225 Karnataka. The catch-note is reproduced

MR. SAURABH ANIL GANDHI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailmr. Saurabh Anil Gandhi A-502 Chanakya Chs Ltd. Mahavir Nagar, Opp. Ekta Nagar, New Link Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai- 400067 ............... Appellant Pan: Aelpg7302J

reassessment. Grounds against disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80GGA of the Act 5. confirming the action of the Ld. AO of disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80GGA of the Act of Rs.1,00,000/- being amount paid to Navjeevan Charitable Trust ('NCT') merely based on surmises and conjectures that the Appellant was a part of a large cash

PARAM PROPERTT DEVLOPER,AMBERNATH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals are dismissed

reassess the total income for the above said six years. This\nsection further provides that all pending assessment or re-assessment\npending as on the date of search shall abate. Hence the assessments of\nthe assessment years falling within the period of above said six years\nwhich are not pending, i.e., which have attained finality shall not abate.\nThe question

JAGMANDRI FINVEST PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year : 2009-10

548 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed the affidavit sworn by the Director of the assessee 3 Jadmandri Finvest Pvt. Ltd. company, Shri Ramesh Dharamchand Agarwal, on 25/05/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. In the said affidavit, the Director submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) was never served