ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHREM TRADING LLP, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

69B of the I.T. Act. 3. The facts relating the issue are stated in brief. The return of income was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration on 4.8.2017 declaring Nil income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.3.2021. In the reassessment

ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. ANIL M. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

reassessing u/s 153A on the completed assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thus, considering the judgment in the case of the Jai Steel Ltd (supra), the arguments on the legal issue raised before us stands covered. Therefore, considering the Rajasthan High Court‟s judgment in the case of Jai Steels Ltd, supra, we have no difficulty in (i) upholding

ANIL MAHAVIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

reassessing u/s 153A on the completed assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thus, considering the judgment in the case of the Jai Steel Ltd (supra), the arguments on the legal issue raised before us stands covered. Therefore, considering the Rajasthan High Court‟s judgment in the case of Jai Steels Ltd, supra, we have no difficulty in (i) upholding

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

69B are applicable. 4) The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced. 5) The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. E I RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

69B are applicable. 4) The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced. 5) The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal

MRS. RENU TIKAMDAS THARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

sections 5(2) rw 8 r.w 9 rw 69, 69A, 69B, as applicable in the case, emanating from the base note. Any other computation will be incorrect. Further, according to appellant there is duplication over years and months within the year. 6. In view of discussion is para 5, the Assessing Officer is directed to assess only such sums, confining

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 have not been challenged on behalf of the Assessee. The appeals before the Tribunal are being pursued by the mother of the Appellant being his legal heir and duly constituted attorney of other ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021

M/S EVERFINE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

reassessment notice issued solely on basis of statement is without jurisdiction. 6.6. Finally, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also argued that it is a clear case of borrowed satisfaction without any conduct of enquiry prior to reopening but being made simply by relying upon a statement of third party during survey, which in any case is vague and that

EI RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

reassessment exercise is\nvitiated at inception, and all consequential proceedings are\nrendered nullities in the eye of law.\n\n49. In the result, and in consonance with our detailed\nfindings hereinbefore, we hold that (i) the additions made\nunder Section 69A on account of alleged cash investment in\nKolgaon land stand deleted for want of evidence; (ii) the\nreassessment proceedings

M/S. UNITED INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO. WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

section 148A(1)(a) and 148A(1)(b) of the Act. (4) On the facts and circumstances and in law the impugned reassessment proceeding is bad-in-law.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a partnership firm and had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of assessee. such a scenariono addition is warranted

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of assessee. such a scenariono addition is warranted

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of assessee. such a scenariono addition is warranted

MISHRA GANESHA RAM ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of asse such a scenariono addition is warranted

DY CIT CC 7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN GLOBAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

reassess has been used for completed assessment proceedings, which would not abate as they are not pending on the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition and which would also necessarily support the interpretation that for the completed assessments, the same can be tinkered only based on the incriminating material found during the course of search

MOUNT VIEW CLUB & RESORTS P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 are allowed and the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.1358 To 1360 & 1362/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07 M/S. Mount View Club & The Ito-10(3)(4), बनाम/ Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 27, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi Navi Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm 5353M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Prakash Pandit Shri Asghar Zain Vp ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

reassessment proceedings and submitted that for invoking provisions of section 142A of the Act, the first requirement is where an estimate value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69A or section 69B

DCIT (EX) - 1(1), MUMBAI vs. THE LOHAR CHAWL DAWOODI BOHRA MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Dy. Commissioner Of The Lohar Chawl Dawoodi Income Tax (Ex) -1(1) Bohra Merchants’ Association Room No. 506, 5 Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 56/62, Chandabai Bldg., Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, 2Nd Floor, Mangaldas Road, Lohar Chawl, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 002 Pan No. Aaatl0024D Appellant .. Respondent

Section 36A of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Therefore, ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 12 Coming to ground numbers 3-4 of the appeal with respect to the addition of ₹15,95,82,806/- made u/s 69A and 69B of the Income Tax Act by the learned Assessing Officer, We find that the assessee has though deposited

MANOJ KUMAR CHANDRAMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. Manoj Kumar Chandrama Prasad Pande ITA no.191/Mum./2023 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the AO relied on the statement recorded of the builder, however, no opportunity