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

60, section 61, section 64, section93 or section94; 61, section 64, section93 or section94; M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (b) the income of a deductee being an association of persons (b) the income of a deductee being an association of persons (b) the income of a deductee being

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

60, section 61, section 64, section93 or section94; 61, section 64, section93 or section94; M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (b) the income of a deductee being an association of persons (b) the income of a deductee being an association of persons (b) the income of a deductee being

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record and other material were all common which were being considered by the CIT(A) in the proceedings relating to three appeals. The petitioner had notice and opportunity of being heard. The reassessment proceedings were

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record and other material were all common which were being 25 & 2698/Mum/2016 v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record and other material were all common which were being 25 & 2698/Mum/2016 v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

reassessment proceedings. The reopening of assessment is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 3 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. 2.1. During hearing, Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. counsel for the assessee, challenged the reopening of assessment, beyond four years, by contending that the assessee filed the return on 28/10/2007 and thereafter notice under section

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections [***] [except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21. In the case

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21. In the case

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the vs. DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 60 (Mad), where the assessee had of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.21. In the case

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record and other material were all common which were being considered by the CIT(A) in the proceedings relating to three appeals. The petitioner had notice and opportunity of being heard. The reassessment proceedings were

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record and other material were all common which were being considered by the CIT(A) in the proceedings relating to three appeals. The petitioner had notice and opportunity of being heard. The reassessment proceedings were

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee\N\Nita No.6827/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2019-20\Nita No.6828/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2020-21\Nita No.6829/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2016-17\Nita No.6830/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2014-15\Nita No.6831/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18\Nita No.6832/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2015-16\Nita No.6833/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2018-19\Nita No.6834/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2021-22\N\Nannapurna Buildcon Infra Vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, Thane\Nprivate Limited,\Nroom No.10, 6Th Floor, Ashar\Nshop No.6, Ground Floor,\Nit Park, Wagle Industrial\Nrachana Chs Ltd, Opp. Estate, Thane(W).\Nmcf Club, Jogurs Park,\Nborivali (West),\Nmumbai\Nappellant\Npan: Aahca7229F\Nrespondent\N\Nfor Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta\Nfor Revenue: Dr. K.R. Subhash Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 12-02-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 06-03-2025\N\Norder\Nper Bench :\Nall The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Ncommon Order Dt.25-10-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11, [‘Ld.Cit(A)] & They Relate To Ays.\N2014-15 To 2021-22. Since Common Issues Are Urged In These Appeals,\Nthey Were Heard Together. Hence, They Are Being Disposed Of By This\Ncommon Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. The Common Issue Contested In All These Years Is Related To The\Naddition Of Estimated Profit On The Alleged On-Money Received By The\Nassessee On Sale Of Flats.\N\N2.

60% under section\n113 whereas income other than 'undisclosed income' was required to\nbe assessed under regular assessment procedure and was taxable at\nnormal rate. Therefore, section 153A came to be inserted and brought\non the statute. Under Section 153A regime, the intention of the\nlegislation was to do away with the scheme of two parallel\nassessments

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee\N\Nita No.6827/Mum/2024\Nita No.6828/Mum/2024\Nita No.6829/Mum/2024\Nita No.6830/Mum/2024\Nita No.6831/Mum/2024\Nita No.6832/Mum/2024\Nita No.6833/Mum/2024\Nita No.6834/Mum/2024\N\Na.Y. 2019-20\Na.Y. 2020-21\Na.Y. 2016-17\Na.Y. 2014-15\Na.Y. 2017-18\Na.Y. 2015-16\Na.Y. 2018-19\Na.Y. 2021-22\N\Nannapurna Buildcon Infra Vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, Thane\Nprivate Limited,\Nroom No.10, 6Th Floor, Ashar\Nshop No.6, Ground Floor,\Nit Park, Wagle Industrial\Nrachana Chs Ltd, Opp.\Nestate, Thane(W).\Nmcf Club, Jogurs Park,\Nborivali (West),\Nmumbai\Npan: Aahca7229F\Nappellant\Nrespondent\N\Nfor Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta\Nfor Revenue: Dr. K.R. Subhash Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 12-02-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 06-03-2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Bench :\Nall The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Ncommon Order Dt.25-10-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11, [‘Ld.Cit(A)] & They Relate To Ays.\N2014-15 To 2021-22. Since Common Issues Are Urged In These Appeals,\Nthey Were Heard Together. Hence, They Are Being Disposed Of By This\Ncommon Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. The Common Issue Contested In All These Years Is Related To The\Naddition Of Estimated Profit On The Alleged On-Money Received By The\Nassessee On Sale Of Flats.\N\N2.

60% under section\n113 whereas income other than 'undisclosed income' was required to\nbe assessed under regular assessment procedure and was taxable at\nnormal rate. Therefore, section 153A came to be inserted and brought\non the statute. Under Section 153A regime, the intention of the\nlegislation was to do away with the scheme of two parallel\nassessments

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