ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and\nissued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notice,\nthe assessee filed his return of income and statutory notices under section\n143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the\nassessee. The AO vide order dated 28/12/2018 passed

BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 69C in view of the above discussion; Total assessed Income Total assessed Income 417,87,20,220/- 15. With effect from 01.04.2017, 15. With effect from 01.04.2017, sub-section (2) of section 115BBE of the Income section (2) of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides that where total income of an assessee includes any income referred

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153A and for the AY 2011-12, separate findings rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining years as well. 2. The assessee in the various grounds of appeal and additional grounds raised before us has primarily challenged the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153A and for the AY 2011-12, separate findings rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining years as well. 2. The assessee in the various grounds of appeal and additional grounds raised before us has primarily challenged the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153A and for the AY 2011-12, separate findings rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining years as well. 2. The assessee in the various grounds of appeal and additional grounds raised before us has primarily challenged the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153A and for the AY 2011-12, separate findings rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining years as well. 2. The assessee in the various grounds of appeal and additional grounds raised before us has primarily challenged the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153A and for the AY 2011-12, separate findings rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining years as well. 2. The assessee in the various grounds of appeal and additional grounds raised before us has primarily challenged the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153A and for the AY 2011-12, separate findings rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining years as well. 2. The assessee in the various grounds of appeal and additional grounds raised before us has primarily challenged the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153A and for the AY 2011-12, separate findings rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining years as well. 2. The assessee in the various grounds of appeal and additional grounds raised before us has primarily challenged the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 have not been challenged on behalf of the Assessee. The appeals before the Tribunal are being pursued by the mother of the Appellant being his legal heir and duly constituted attorney of other ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), without appreciating the evidences and confirmation made by the Loan creditor including affidavit furnished before the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. During hearing, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Rajkumar Singh, contended that except the statement of Shri Bhavarlal Jain, there is no incriminating material brought on record

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 DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 158BB(1) would include material, information and evidence gathered as a result of post-search investigation on the basis of evidence found during the search or found as a result of search. Such information as would be available with the AO can be made the base for computation of undisclosed income of the block period. The term

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) on the amounts as mentioned in the respective appeal. 2. During hearing, none was present for the assessee. The Registered AD letter sent to the assessee was returned unserved by the postal authorities. The assessee neither furnished the new address, if there is change in the address, nor moved

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) on the amounts as mentioned in the respective appeal. 2. During hearing, none was present for the assessee. The Registered AD letter sent to the assessee was returned unserved by the postal authorities. The assessee neither furnished the new address, if there is change in the address, nor moved

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) on the amounts as mentioned in the respective appeal. 2. During hearing, none was present for the assessee. The Registered AD letter sent to the assessee was returned unserved by the postal authorities. The assessee neither furnished the new address, if there is change in the address, nor moved

ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN vs. RICH & ROYAL, KALYAN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

u/s 133A and no other M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 2.29. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under:- “In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening