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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

M/S. SUMER BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Sumer Builders Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 220, Commerce House, Central Circle – 5(3), 140, Nagindas Master (Erstwhile The Assistant Road, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 Tax, Central Circle-36, Pan: Aaacs7947P Mumbai), 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.02.2012 declaring total income of Rs.84,66,352/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording reasons under section 148(2) after 5 M/s. Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd. issuing notice under section 148 on 13.03.2013 which was duly

DCIT, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. GHANSHYAM RASIKLAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

4 on pages 2 and 3 of the assessment order were found and seized. These documents allegedly reflected unaccounted cash transactions involving the appellant and the Ameya Group. The appellant contends that, in view of the above facts, the assessment ought to have been completed under Section 153C of the Act,and not under Section 147. The relevant provision, Section

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

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

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 7.4. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after insertion of Explanation

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act on 28/12/2018, the Assessing Officer disallowed following on on 28/12/2018, the 28/12/2018, the Assessing Officer disallowed Assessing Officer disallowed expenses: (i) Business promotion expenses amounting to Business promotion expenses amounting to ₹3,72,89,606/ 606/- ; (ii) Depreciation on ‘yacht ‘yacht’ amounting to ₹29,62,433/-and (iii) Repair expenses of the yacht amounting

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act on 28/12/2018, the Assessing Officer disallowed following on on 28/12/2018, the 28/12/2018, the Assessing Officer disallowed Assessing Officer disallowed expenses: (i) Business promotion expenses amounting to Business promotion expenses amounting to ₹3,72,89,606/ 606/- ; (ii) Depreciation on ‘yacht ‘yacht’ amounting to ₹29,62,433/-and (iii) Repair expenses of the yacht amounting

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

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 4.2. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after insertion of Explanation

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

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 4.2. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after insertion of Explanation

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 2.7. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after insertion of Explanation