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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of search under 132 or requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective order

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of search under 132 or requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective order

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN DIAMOND COMPANY PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 166/Mum/2024 is dismissed

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

reassessed has the effect income, both are positive; hence, this of reducing the loss or clause is not applicable to the Appellant. converting such loss into income. 5.6. From the above, it is clear that the case of appellant does not fit into any of the above clauses of section 270A(2) and thus it cannot be called that

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

Reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act are bad in law as the due process of law is riot followed." The assessee's case was reopened under section 148 of the Act due to earning of capital gain amount of Rs.2,54,98,050/- during the impugned assessment year. After the verification, the addition was confirmed under section

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was claimed. The Assessing Officer has held that neither the purchase nor sale of shares were genuine and that the amount of Rs.1,41,08,484/- stated to have been received by the\n\nassesse on sale of shares was undisclosed income and accordingly made addition under section 69\n\nHon'ble High

DY.C.I.T. CENT. CIR-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI DILIP B.JIWRAJKA, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objections for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14

reassess' to complete assessment proceedings. 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 C.O. 92 & 93/Mum/2022 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 15-16 Shri Dilip B. Jiwarajka for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

reassess the total income, taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns\" and as in the instant case the addition is based on the incriminating material such as the information qua selling of lands by the Assessee, found from the valuable group of cases