DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

147 of the Act was passed on 19th march, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹17,81,070/- by making addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Reassessment order was challenged before the learned CIT (A) unsuccessfully and consequently, before the ITAT. As per the order of the ITAT dated 25th October, 2021, in ITA No.2947/Mum/2019

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

147 of the Act was passed on 19th march, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹17,81,070/- by making addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Reassessment order was challenged before the learned CIT (A) unsuccessfully and consequently, before the ITAT. As per the order of the ITAT dated 25th October, 2021, in ITA No.2947/Mum/2019

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

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 passed u/s 147 r.w. sec. 143(3) of the Act without disposing off r.w. sec. 143(3) of the Act without disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant to the reopening of the the objections raised by the Appellant to the reopening of the the objections raised by the Appellant to the reopening

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

natural justice during the course justice during the course of the of th e assessment assessment proceedings, on this issue. proceedings, on this issue. 22.19 In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, this ground of appeal

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

natural justice during the course justice during the course of the of th e assessment assessment proceedings, on this issue. proceedings, on this issue. 22.19 In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, this ground of appeal

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

natural justice during the course justice during the course of the of th e assessment assessment proceedings, on this issue. proceedings, on this issue. 22.19 In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, this ground of appeal

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

natural justice which has rendered the assessment assessment as null and void. B. Merits 74. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the 74. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the 74. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.105000000/ Act of Rs.105000000

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

natural justice which has rendered the assessment assessment as null and void. B. Merits 74. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the 74. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the 74. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.105000000/ Act of Rs.105000000

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Reassessment was completed and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on 10/12/2019 determining the total income at 10/12/2019 determining the total income at ₹85,05, ,430. 4.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee filed Appeal before

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Reassessment was completed and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on 10/12/2019 determining the total income at 10/12/2019 determining the total income at ₹85,05, ,430. 4.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee filed Appeal before

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Reassessment was completed and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on pleted and Order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) was passed on 10/12/2019 determining the total income at 10/12/2019 determining the total income at ₹85,05, ,430. 4.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee filed Appeal before

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

BENCO FINANCE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

JUSTICE: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 49, Mumbai (―the CIT(A)‖] erred in confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 40, Mumbai ("the Assessing Officer") after considering the facts that the order was passed without giving a fair

A.C.I.T.-20(3), MUMBAI vs. MRS. VARSHA P. SHAH, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and matter is restored back to the file of Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2054/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

natural justice are vitiated . Our attention was drawn to page no. 37 of the paper book wherein the letter dated 01.10.2014 which is stated to be filed by the assessee with the A.O during the course of reassessment proceedings is placed on record wherein the assessee sought for statement of the lender as well cross examination of the lender from

UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

nature of bogus sales and unsecured loans . A search and seizure action in these group cases were carried on 03.10.2013 by DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai. During the course of search and seizure operations u/s 132 conducted by Revenue , list of beneficiaries of these accommodation entries obtained from these groups were compiled by Revenue. The name of the assssee also figured

UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

nature of bogus sales and unsecured loans . A search and seizure action in these group cases were carried on 03.10.2013 by DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai. During the course of search and seizure operations u/s 132 conducted by Revenue , list of beneficiaries of these accommodation entries obtained from these groups were compiled by Revenue. The name of the assssee also figured

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore