SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the Act. 2.1 During reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked During reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked During reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify sale consideration of ₹2,30,01, the assessee to justify sale consideration of 01,500/-received as genuine. The Assessing on sale of shares of on sale of shares

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings which are initiated u/s 147 by way of reconsideration of the material already available at the time of original assessment proceedings, would amount to change of opinion. Thus, it is humbly submitted that it is said in the stock market, that 'PRICE IS GOD'. There is no reasonable justification for the price of any scrip at any point

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

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

147, of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long-term securities\n(Bogus transactions) Assessment year 2006-\n07 Assesse purchased 3000 shares of\ncompany 'T' through a stock broker These\nshares were transferred to assesses demat\naccount - However, said stock broker submitted\nbefore authorities that he was providing\naccommodation entries for taking profit

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment order dated 04.03.2015 disallowed entire amoun entire amount of bogus purchase t of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.9,87,466/-. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of bogus purchases in assessment year

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment order dated 04.03.2015 disallowed entire amoun entire amount of bogus purchase t of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.9,87,466/-. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of bogus purchases in assessment year

ASHOK JASRAJ JAIN, HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for AY 2014-15. Ashok Jasraj Jain, HUF 13 8.1 Firstly, the assessee has challenged the validity of the Firstly, the assessee has challenged the validity of the Firstly, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reassessment proceeding on the ground of nonapplication of the reassessment proceeding on the ground of nonapplication

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

penny stock. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 69C by way of 3% commission on sale proceeds of shares on the basis of assumption without considering the written submission. 5. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Stock Brokers Ltd., made in the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018. Since the earlier reassessment order dated 28.12.2017 itself stands quashed by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction, the income determined therein cannot survive and therefore cannot be adopted as the base income in the impugned reassessment order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the present reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Stock Brokers Ltd., made in the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018. Since the earlier reassessment order dated 28.12.2017 itself stands quashed by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction, the income determined therein cannot survive and therefore cannot be adopted as the base income in the impugned reassessment order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the present reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Stock Brokers Ltd., made in the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018. Since the earlier reassessment order dated 28.12.2017 itself stands quashed by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction, the income determined therein cannot survive and therefore cannot be adopted as the base income in the impugned reassessment order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the present reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Stock Brokers Ltd., made in the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018. Since the earlier reassessment order dated 28.12.2017 itself stands quashed by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction, the income determined therein cannot survive and therefore cannot be adopted as the base income in the impugned reassessment order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the present reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Stock Brokers Ltd., made in the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018. Since the earlier reassessment order dated 28.12.2017 itself stands quashed by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction, the income determined therein cannot survive and therefore cannot be adopted as the base income in the impugned reassessment order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the present reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Stock Brokers Ltd., made in the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018. Since the earlier reassessment order dated 28.12.2017 itself stands quashed by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction, the income determined therein cannot survive and therefore cannot be adopted as the base income in the impugned reassessment order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the present reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Stock Brokers Ltd., made in the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018. Since the earlier reassessment order dated 28.12.2017 itself stands quashed by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction, the income determined therein cannot survive and therefore cannot be adopted as the base income in the impugned reassessment order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the present reassessment

TIME MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LLP (EARLIER TIME MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Llp (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 Th Floor, V. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6534/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.07.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-89/Ito-16(1)(5)/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017

147 (a) of the Act was satisfied." 28. In Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC), relied upon by Mr. Putney, the Supreme Court held :— "In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only

KAMLESH GUPTA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kamlesh Gupta Dy. Commissioner Of 59, Mount Unique 62-A, Vs. Income-Tax (13)(3)(1) Peddar Road, Room No. 229, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 026 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aegpg6788R

penny stock company, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 was issued by the A.O on 31.03.2017. In response, the assessee vide his letter dated 25.04.2017 stated that his original return of income filed on 30.01.2012 may be treated as a return filed in response to the aforementioned notice issued u/s

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SANTOSH VIMLESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

u/s 131 on 10/01/2019 of Bhrt Pradeep Dhanuka, Director of Rupak Developers Private Limited, Romy Dhanuka, Director of Rupak Developers Private Limited, Romy Dhanuka, Director of Rupak Developers Private Limited, Romy Realty Private Limited, V R P Financial Pvt Ltd, please go Realty Private Limited, V R P Financial Pvt Ltd, please go Realty Private Limited, V R P Financial