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

section 55A and hence the same is bad in law. 18 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited b) The Appellant prays that the reassessment

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

section 55A and hence the same is bad in law. 18 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited b) The Appellant prays that the reassessment

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 does not survive for reasons stated herein above, grounds of appeal raised on merits does not require separate adjudication. However, issues involved in present appeal are also found in other assessment years appeal heard by this bench, hence considering such facts, other grounds of appeal as raised by assessee are also discussed on merits in subsequent paras

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , 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 does not survive for reasons stated herein above, grounds of appeal raised on merits does not require separate adjudication. However, issues involved in present appeal are also found in other assessment years appeal heard by this bench, hence considering such facts, other grounds of appeal as raised by assessee are also discussed on merits in subsequent paras

LAXMAN MAHADEV PATIL (LEGAL HEIR HEMANT LAXMAN PATIL),LAXMAN PATIL HOUSE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(3) EARLIER ASSESSED WITH ITO 29(2)(2)., KAUTILYA BHAVAN,

The appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Justice C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble: A.Y : 2011-12

Section 55A of the Act and in terms of the Valuation Report submitted thereof on 08.08.2017, the market value of the property was estimated at Rs.3,91,12,000/- and Rs.13,27,030/- as on 18.10.2010 and on 01.04.1981 respectively. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has reassessed

VINAY TARACHAND CHAWLA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the income.\n\n2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a\npartner in partnership firms M/s Chinmaya Estates and M/s\nChinmaya Associates ( in short the ‘Chinmaya'). The assessee was\nalso having substantial shareholding in a company namely M/s\nKamani Foods Private Limited (in short the ‘Kamani'). The assessee\nfiled his return of income electronically

LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 8(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee were initiated. Further, notices issued under section 133(6) by the AO to the aforesaid entity were also returned unserved. The AO made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases made from the aforesaid supplier. It is the plea of the assessee that all the purchases were made through brokers and therefore

LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee were initiated. Further, notices issued under section 133(6) by the AO to the aforesaid entity were also returned unserved. The AO made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases made from the aforesaid supplier. It is the plea of the assessee that all the purchases were made through brokers and therefore

GOBINDRAM JAGDISH KAKWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the market value by appointing a Valuer since the value was much less and the assessee was unable to sell the unit. The assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54F of the entire capital gains made by him on the sale of unit. The assessee has invested a sum of Rs 64,00,000/- in new residential asset and documentary