ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

section (1) shall be deemed to have been executed,— (a) in the case of search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued;” 2.17. Thus, the search will be deemed to be concluded on the basis of last panchnama drawn

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

seizure remain to be performed and, therefore, search cannot be said to be concluded. Hence, in ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 such case, search would be concluded when the prohibitory order is lifted and the books of account/valuable articles are actually seized and the panchnama

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

section (1) shall be deemed to have been executed,— (a) in the case of search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued;” 2.17. Thus, the search will be deemed to be concluded on the basis of last panchnama drawn

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

68 153C. 69 [(1)] 70[Notwithstanding anything contained in [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 147, section 148 section 148, section 149, section 151 and and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or any money, bullion

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

68 of the I.T.Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter, he ought not to have confirmed the said addition of Rs.59,24,273/-." Additional ground "1. The notice u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law as the reopening is pursuant to the search of third party, and therefore the provisions of section 153C of the Act ought

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out at the ) was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 11/06/2013 along with the search premises of the assessee on 11/06/2013 along with the search premises of the assessee on 11/06/2013 along with the search action

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out at the ) was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 11/06/2013 along with the search premises of the assessee on 11/06/2013 along with the search premises of the assessee on 11/06/2013 along with the search action

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

search and seizure operation, survey operation and investigation were checked. The Assessing Officer thereupon proceeded to record that "On perusal of data so provided by the Deputy Director (Investigation), it is noticed that during the period under consideration, the assessee company has accepted share capital/share premium from the following entries/parties which have been proved to be shell companies based

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

seizure cases, the\nconcept of pecuniary jurisdiction has no application, as search assessments are\nnot assigned to any Income-tax Officer. The lowest authority empowered to\ncomplete a search assessment is the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax or\nDeputy Commissioner of Income-tax. We note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nin Chaudhury Skin Trading Company &Ors. (supra

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JUICY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

section 68 in respect of\n\"source of source\" i.e. the source in the hands of the shareholders.\nAccordingly, he added the entire share capital as cash credit u/s 68 of\nthe Act.\n\n9.12 In this regard, it is first necessary to understand the provisions of\nsection 68 which is reproduced hereunder -\n\n\"68. Where

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SUCHIR CHEMICALS PVT LTD, MUMBAI.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

section 68 of the Income tax Act. Moreover, both rightly had applied the 20 M/s. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., decision of Lovely exports (P) Ltd. (supra) to the case of the respondent assesse. We find no reason in absence of any illegality much less any perversity too to interfere with the order of both these authorities who have concurrently held

A ONE SIZING WORKS,BHIWANDI vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 , THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 A One Sizing Works, The Asst. Cit Central Circle 3, House No. 1237, Opp. Ganesh 12, A Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Compound, Behind Mahakali Vs. Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Dyeing Narpoli, Industrial Estate, Bhiwandi-421302. Thane West-400604. Pan No. Aajfa 6696 F Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Act and disallowed interest of Rs.46,67,717/- claimed in respect of unsecured loans. claimed in respect of unsecured loans. claimed in respect of unsecured loans. 3.6 In assessment year 2018 In assessment year 2018-19, the Assessing Officer made ssing Officer made disallowance of Rs.34,03,144/ disallowance of Rs.34,03,144/- on account

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit Central Circle-8(3), 72-7, Kalpatatru Residency 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower B, Sion Koliwada Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Sion, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on was carried out on 11/06/2013 on the premises of the assessee along with cases of 11/06/2013 on the premises of the assessee along with cases of 11/06/2013 on the premises of the assessee along with cases of “RSBL” group. Consequent to search action, notice under section “RSBL” group

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit Central Circle-8(3), 72-7, Kalpatatru Residency 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower B, Sion Koliwada Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Sion, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on was carried out on 11/06/2013 on the premises of the assessee along with cases of 11/06/2013 on the premises of the assessee along with cases of 11/06/2013 on the premises of the assessee along with cases of “RSBL” group. Consequent to search action, notice under section “RSBL” group

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

seizure action u/s. 132 of the IT Act, 1951 was carried out on 01.10.2013 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai wherein some of his 01.10.2013 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai wherein some of his 01.10.2013 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai wherein some of his associate concerns were also covered. associate concerns were also covered. 3. During the course of search proceeding

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

seizure action u/s. 132 of the IT Act, 1951 was carried out on 01.10.2013 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai wherein some of his 01.10.2013 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai wherein some of his 01.10.2013 by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai wherein some of his associate concerns were also covered. associate concerns were also covered. 3. During the course of search proceeding

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

seizure, i.e., the income which cannot be detected in ordinary course of regular assessment. Thus, the foundation for making search assessments under sections 153A/153C can be said to be the existence of incriminating material showing undisclosed income detected as a result of search.” 9. 8. The scope of assessments to be framed u/s 153A/153C of the Act has been explained

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

seizure and he has reasons to believe that some income has escaped assessment, when the notice under section 153A has already been issued ? In this regard, the literal interpretation of section 153A would be that assessing officer has power to assess or reassess the total income in respect of each of the six assessment years for which notice under section