THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

SAMBHAVANATH INFRABUILD FARMS (SUCCESSOR TO LODHA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Cit– Central Circle – 7(3) {Successor To Lodha Construction Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aalcs1394M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 158B(b) as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995. The said provision is reproduced below: "158B--In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a)......:.... (b) "undisclosed income" includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 158B(b) as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995. The said provision is reproduced below: "158B--In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a)......:.... (b) "undisclosed income" includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account

SHRI MOHAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

u/s 147, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A. The Income tax Act, 1961, by section 153A, 153B and 153C provides for new scheme of assessment of cases, where

NIKHIL RASHIKLAL VORA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), 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 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

129/- Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty OneThousand Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty OneThousand Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty OneThousand OneHundred TwentyNine] which is charge OneHundred TwentyNine] which is chargeable to tax has deemed to able to tax has deemed to be an escaped assessment and therefore the provisions of section

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

u/s. 80-IA as per Circular No.4 OF 2010 Dt. 18th May, 2010 Circular No.4 OF 2010 Dt. 18th May, 2010. It Circular No.4 OF 2010 Dt. 18th May, 2010 was also contended that the was also contended that the deduction has not been deduction has not been claimed on the entire turnover claimed on the entire turnover