NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

reassessment order:\n6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the mistake on the part of the\nLd. AO in quoting section 56(2)(viib) instead of 56(2)(viia

VORA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. A C I T - 2(3((1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 274, Perin Nariman, St. Bazar Gate M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1975E Appellant Respondent

56(2)(viia) of the Act. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares and derivatives. The first issue relates to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee received dividend income of Rs.31,35,460/- and claimed the same as exempt. The assessee did not disallow any expenditure in terms

METROPOLITAN STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

viia) and in respect of foreign exchange rate difference. Neither in the first order of reassessment dated 22 February 2000 nor in the second order of reassessment dated 26 March 2002 were these aspects determined. In other words on the aforesaid three issues, the original order of assessment dated 10 March 1999 passed under Section 143(3) continued to hold

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. AACHMAN VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

viia) of the Act are not applicable. Addressing the additional ground, the ld. CIT(A) observed that no incriminating material regarding the purchase of shares by the assessee was found during the course of search and there is no documentary evidence found during the search which indicate that the assessee has paid in cash for acquiring these shares below

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RISING STAR INVESTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

56(2)(viia). Ld. Assessing Officer has taken cognizance of the submissions made by the assessee for the request for reference to DVO. In this respect, he noted that since the assessee has made such a request at the fag end of the assessment proceedings, owing to the limited time available for completing the assessment proceedings, he proceeded to complete

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

viia) of the act, although, the opening balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

viia) of the act, although, the opening balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years

GATEGROUP INVESTMENTS SINGAPORE PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. INT TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhangateway Investments Singapore Pte Ltd. ...... Appellant 1 Maritime Square, # 12-03 Harbour Front Centre Singapore-99 253 Pan No. : Aaecg1565B

viia) of the Act on ‘Rights issue’ of equity shares. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon’ble DRP has erred in wrongly applying the provision of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act on the current facts. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

viia) and reduce the total income under normal provisions of the Act accordingly. 2.1 Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that if there are funds available both interest free and loans fund then presumption would arise

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have