ESQUE FINMARK PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-47, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Blem/S. Esquefinmark Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle – 47 9A, Chunawala Compound Room No. 658/676 Parel Tank Road Aayakar Bhavan Kalachowki, Mumbai - 400033 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaace8307P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Hema Kataria Department By D.K. Gupta

747/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 4,62,322/-which were claimed in return filed u/s 153A of the Act and not in the return filed u/s. 139 of the Act. Vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2011-12 of the Act, the AO disallowed the said claim

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,46,747/- being 3% of Rs. 5,15,58,261/- by treating genuine purchases made by the appellant in the normal course of business, as bogus

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

747\n\n16. Apart from the aforesaid grounds on merits of the addition,\nthe Assessee has also raised legal grounds regarding the validity\nof the Notice under Section 148 & validity of DIN on the\nAssessment Order.\n\nSubmissions of the A.R:\n\n17. The matter was argued at length before us. The Assessees\nhave also filed detailed written synopsis covering

SURYDARSHAN CO -OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./I.T.As. No.5092 To 5094/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-04 To 2004-05) Suryadarshan Co-Op Hsg Income Tax Officer -16(1)(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Soc.Ltd., Mumbai. Vs. 44/50, Walkeshwar Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further the Learned CIT (A) has erred by justifying this act of Assessing officer. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred by obtaining approval of Additional C.IT.-16 (1),Mumbai instead of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before issuing notice u/s 148. Further the Learned CIT (A) has erred

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

747/-, and addition under section 69A amounting to Rs.64,154/-, holding that the assessee failed to substantiate genuineness of expenses and credits. 8. Likewise, in Assessment Year 2012-13 and Assessment Year 2013-14, additions were made under similar provisions and on similar reasoning, treating expenses as non-genuine, credits as unexplained, and negative cash balances as unexplained money

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

747/-, and addition under section 69A amounting to Rs.64,154/-, holding that the assessee failed to substantiate genuineness of expenses and credits. 8. Likewise, in Assessment Year 2012-13 and Assessment Year 2013-14, additions were made under similar provisions and on similar reasoning, treating expenses as non-genuine, credits as unexplained, and negative cash balances as unexplained money

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

747/-, and addition under section 69A amounting to Rs.64,154/-, holding that the assessee failed to substantiate genuineness of expenses and credits. 8. Likewise, in Assessment Year 2012-13 and Assessment Year 2013-14, additions were made under similar provisions and on similar reasoning, treating expenses as non-genuine, credits as unexplained, and negative cash balances as unexplained money

JSW HOLDINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Sh Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

747 1.6 Section 14A (2) provides for the Assessing officer to “determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, if the Assessing officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with

SADRUDDIN NOORUDIN TEJANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2018-19

747/- by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act on the ground that the sale consideration declared by the assessee was lower than the stamp duty valuation of the property. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee remained non- compliant and failed to respond

KRISHNA KUMAR MITTAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1482/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-2006)

747/-. The legal grounds challenging the reassessment u/s 147 and other grounds are not pressed before us during proceedings and hence the same are dismissed as being ‘not pressed’. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee was resident individual earning salary and interest income whose assessment of impugned year was subjected to re-assessment u/s 143(3) ‘read with section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

747,243,395/–. Thus, according to him the total claim of tax-free income is ₹ 6,000,888,070/– the disallowance under section 14 A is ₹ 3,814,037,203/– . Thus, the learned assessing officer has disallowed 63.56 percentage of the exempt income under section 14 A of the act. Out of this 58.56 percentage is the interest expenditure disallowed

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

747,243,395/–. Thus, according to him the total claim of tax-free income is ₹ 6,000,888,070/– the disallowance under section 14 A is ₹ 3,814,037,203/– . Thus, the learned assessing officer has disallowed 63.56 percentage of the exempt income under section 14 A of the act. Out of this 58.56 percentage is the interest expenditure disallowed

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

RALF JEMS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure