ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

68 8 enhancement Rs. made by the 97,83,899 on learned CIT – A account of on account of deposit in personal balance bank sheet and profit accounts ITA no. 7329 & 3851/Mum/2016 Pramod Ratan Patil; A.Y. 11–12 and loss account cash deposit of ₹ 4,00,500 in Kotak bank account on account of other income of ₹ 516,277 Total

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

131 of the Act. With respect to the remaining parties (leaving aside the parties in respect of which PAN was not available), no addition was made under Section 68 on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the documents like ITR and bank statement of the lenders and has submitted PAN of all lenders and the application forms

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

131 of the Act. With respect to the remaining parties (leaving aside the parties in respect of which PAN was not available), no addition was made under Section 68 on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the documents like ITR and bank statement of the lenders and has submitted PAN of all lenders and the application forms

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2),, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

131]. There is no restraint order passed u/s 132(3). Therefore the last date to pass the Assessment Order is 31/3/2022. Hence, the Assessment orders passed are barred by limitation. 31. Although Ld. DR has argued that CBDT Circular purportedly overrides Section 132(8A) of the Act (which prescribes a maximum duration of sixty days for a restraint order

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

131 to Shubh Impex but the said summons returned unserved by postal authorities with remarks „left‟. The inspector was deputed to verify the address and he reported that Mr. Suhel Parvez Ansari Prop Shubh Impex was not staying at the address . The occupant of the address submitted to the inspector that Mr. Suhel Parvez Ansari was their relative

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

131 to Shubh Impex but the said summons returned unserved by postal authorities with remarks „left‟. The inspector was deputed to verify the address and he reported that Mr. Suhel Parvez Ansari Prop Shubh Impex was not staying at the address . The occupant of the address submitted to the inspector that Mr. Suhel Parvez Ansari was their relative

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

3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings 9 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue

LUMINANT INVESTMENTS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

68, in terms, are not applicable The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

131. 9. We have considered the rival contentions. As far as the taxability of interest amounting to Rs. 13,64,09,609/- is concerned, granted alongwith interest. However, if in the subsequent year refund of interest is withdrawn, then the same should be reduced from the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to tax interest income