PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

section 69C are not applicable as source of expenditure incurred is explained by Appellant along with incurred is explained by Appellant along with necessary supporting documents. supporting documents. 5. 5. The Ld. CIT( 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has relied A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has relied on the statements

ACIT, PAREL PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. BHAVIN KUMAR RAMESHKUMAR JAIN, PAREL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

69C is the absence of explanation regarding the source of the expenditure. of the expenditure. 3.3 In the present case, the am In the present case, the amount of ₹3,00,000/ 3,00,000/- originally claimed as deduction under section 80GGC has been admittedly claimed as deduction under section 80GGC has been admittedly claimed as deduction under section 80GGC

EXECUTIVE TRADING CO. PVT LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. COMM OF INCOME TAX (A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

69C of the Act chargeable to tax at the rate of 60% in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before the CIT(A) 5. challenging the Assessment Order, dated 29/09/2021, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were valid, or if the AO should have invoked Section 153C, and whether the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C

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

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

69C", "143(3)", "147", "148", "153A", "153C", "132", "132(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer correctly invoked Section 147 for reassessment

MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings under section 147, alleging bogus purchases from M/s Indo Count Industries Limited based on information and the statement of the assessee's Director. The AO added the entire purchase amount of Rs. 10,22,92,928/- under section 69C

ANAND MELLARAM ISSRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

reassessment under Sections 68 and 69C of the appeal challenges additions made in reassessment under Sections 68 and 69C of the appeal

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

JORSS BULLION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

reassessment\nproceedings, the addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs.\n39,36,03,084 [Amarnath International of Rs. 13,21,39,764 +\nNeeyorkan Corporation of Rs.4,50,23,880 + M/s. Puhu Gold of\nRs. 21,64,39,440] is made under Section 69C

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. JORSS BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment\nproceedings, the addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs.\n39,36,03,084 [Amarnath International of Rs. 13,21,39,764 +\nNeeyorkan Corporation of Rs.4,50,23,880 + M/s. Puhu Gold of\nRs. 21,64,39,440] is made under Section 69C

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI.

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

SHRIVALLABH PITTE INDUSTRIES LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory\nrequirement of section 153D of the Act and that\nsuch approval is not meant to be given\nmechanically. The Court also concurs with the\nfinding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting\nin vitiating