ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank accounts only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements

CORAL VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11

147 of the Act. M/s Coral Ventures Pvt. Ltd. 4 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. The grounds raised consist mainly

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KUNDAN JEWELLERS, MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

reassessment in pursuance of such notices is invalid and deserves to be quashed.” 3. The brief facts are that assessee is a jeweler engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of gold and diamond jewellery. It has filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) on 22/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,80,69,980/-. Assessee had declared book

DCIT, CC - 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MISHAL NICKUNJ SHAH SHRI. L/H. OF LATE NICKUNJ GUNVANTRAI SHAH , MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

147 section 148 section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

DCIT, CC - 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MISHAL NICKUNJ SHAH SHRI. L/H. OF LATE NICKUNJ GUNVANTRAI SHAH , MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

147 section 148 section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

RAMESH KUMAR PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT,CITY-17, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Pr. Cit, City-17, Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Sahara Shopee, Shop No. 191, Off. Manish Market, S.S. Musafirkhana Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Mumbai-400 001. 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Axmpp 6458 N Appellant Respondent

cash deposit of ₹53,56,450/- in the ICICI Bank account was already considered by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 7th March 2014. Thereafter, the same issue has been taken up in the reassessment order u/s 147

AMIT LALIT KAPOOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Amit Lalit Kapoor The Income Tax Officer, B–701, Supreme –19, Ward–16(1)(1), Lokhandwala, 3R D Cross Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apqpk1601N

reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s147 of the Act and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the reasons recorded by Ld. AO for issuance of notice u/s 148 read with S. 147. has not been supplied

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

147 of the Act, an assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year iod of four years from

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act are held to be legally valid. Both grounds Section 147 of the Act are held to be legally valid. Both grounds Section 147 of the Act are held to be legally valid. Both grounds raised in the applicatio raised in the application under Rule 27 stand rejected. n under Rule

EBRAHIM ESSA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-9(2)(4), 115 Dathawala Wstate, Sv Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jogeshwari West, 400 102. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 4720 E Appellant Respondent

cash credit observing observing as under: “13. Information was received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit 7(4) that during 13. Information was received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit 7(4) that during 13. Information was received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit 7(4) that during the search and seizure action in the case of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt the search and seizure action

DCIT, CC-3(3), MUMBAI vs. MURARILAL R. MITTAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Murarilal Income-Tax, Central Vs. R. Mittal Circle-3(3), Mumbai 1601 Marathon Room No. 1923, Air Heights, Pb Marg, India Building, 19Th Lower Parel (W), Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 013. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan No. Ahnpm8021D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Bharat Andhle, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2021

reassessment proceedings is upheld. 2. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/10/2021. (Shamim Yahya) Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated: 11.10.2021 PS: Rohit Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER

ASST CIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WORLD TRADE PARK LTD, JAIPUR

Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13)

u/s 147 were issued and assessments were 8 I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 M/s World Trade Park Ltd reopened assessment years A.Y.2007-08 to 2009-10 to examine the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the appellant company and only after careful examination of the details (books) submitted during the course of the reassessment

MASTERJI & CO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that the necessary evidences are filed and submissions were made during the appellate proceedings before CIT(A) which justified the cash deposits of Rs. 24,47,000/- is fully explained.” 3. These two appeals by the assessee have common grounds of appeal with the sole issue relating to addition made u/s.68 towards deposit

MASTERJI & CO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that the necessary evidences are filed and submissions were made during the appellate proceedings before CIT(A) which justified the cash deposits of Rs. 24,47,000/- is fully explained.” 3. These two appeals by the assessee have common grounds of appeal with the sole issue relating to addition made u/s.68 towards deposit

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

u/s 153C of the Act, issues a notice u/s 153C to file a return of income for reassessment, then he makes an assessment / reassessment of such income u/s 153A of the Act. 65. Now, the entire procedure is the same except under different sections having two separate contingencies. In our opinion, the Legislature has not left any discretion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JEKIN ENTERPRISE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28.12.2018 after making an addition of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 10.04.2024, Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JEKIN ENTERPRISE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28.12.2018 after making an addition of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 10.04.2024, Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JEKIN ENTERPRISE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3109/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3107/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Acit-42(1), Mumbai V/S. Jekin Enterprise Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, बिधम A 604, Prem Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Building No. 5, Bkc, Bandra East, Mandepeshwar Road, Mumbai-400051 Boriwali (W.), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafj0648R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 177/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3111/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 176/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3110/Mum/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) प्रनि आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 173/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3105/Mum/2024)

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28.12.2018 after making an addition of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 10.04.2024, Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment