ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

u/s 263 it has been alleged that source of purchase and sale of transactions remained to be verified.\n9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, or delete any grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”\n11. During the course of hearing before us the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the reassessment proceedings

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

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 10(34) of the Act.\n15.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n16.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

ABHUBHAI HIRABHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

234A, B, C and D and initiating\npenalty u/s 271[1][c].\n3. The assessee, an individual derived income from salary, house\nproperty, profit and gain from business etc. Fact of the case as narrated\nin the assessment order reveal that the Assessing Officer of one Shri\nJaikishin Rohra handed over the documents which pertained to/related\nto the assessee

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 10(34) of the Act.\n15.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n16.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 10(34) of the Act.\n15.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n16.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 10(34) of the Act.\n15.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n16.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

RATNAGIRI STAINLESS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. ITA 4463/Mum/2016 3 7. The appellant crave leave to add, amend , alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not wish to press ground

AJAY MULTI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajay Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, C.J. House, 285 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aadca 0338 H Appellant Respondent

section 148A have not been followed and as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. The sanction u/s 151 is bad in law and as a result, the The sanction u/s

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2003 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 17(1), (Formerly Known As Vodafone Vodafone Delhi. Essar Mobile Services Ltd.), Essar Mobile Services Ltd.), Vs. Circle Office: C-48, Okhla 48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- -Ii, New Delhi-110020. Pan No. Aaacs 4457 Q Pan No. Aaacs 4457 Q Appellant Respondent

147 of the Act, before serving a speaking order, disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant against initiation of the the objections raised by the Appellant against initiation of the the objections raised by the Appellant against initiation of the re- assessment proceedings. assessment proceedings. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 are without prejudice to Ground 1 rounds

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

234A, 234B, 234C and 234F of the Act, and the order of CIT (Appeal)/NFAC is not correct as per procedure in confirming the same, hence the same is requested to be set aside. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A

GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

147 rws 144 be declared null and void. 3. Without prejudice to other contentions/grounds the notice issued u/s. 148 is invalid. The notice ought to have been issued under section 153C of the IT Act 1961. 4. Without prejudice to other grounds of appeal no addition can be done under section 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961 and question

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

234A, B, C and D & initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act.” 6. In both appeals, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act and has also raised the grounds on merits, challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”). Since

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery