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

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

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

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

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

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

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

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

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

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

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

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

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

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

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

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

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\nassessees are stands allowed

Section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the\ncase.\n\n12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter\nany of the grounds of appeal.\n\nFirst of all, we take up legal ground regarding\nchallenging the order of assessment on the ground that the\nsame is barred by limitation.\n\n3. In this regard

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

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said addition made by the Ld. A.O. is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted. ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 14. On the facts

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 of the Act by providing all explanations regarding the receipt of funds on account of issue of rights shares to its existing shareholders. 44 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 2.42 In the instant case, from the documents furnished before lower authorities it is abundantly clear that the assessee has not only furnished irrefutable

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

132. Such orders are issued where it is not practicable to seize. So an act of seizure remain to be performed and, therefore, search cannot be said to be concluded. Hence, in 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 is prepared. In such

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

132. Such orders are issued where it is not practicable to seize. So an act of seizure remain to be performed and, therefore, search cannot be said to be concluded. Hence, in 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 is prepared. In such

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

132. Such orders are issued where it is not practicable to seize. So an act of seizure remain to be performed and, therefore, search cannot be said to be concluded. Hence, in 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 is prepared. In such

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

132. Such orders are issued where it is not practicable to seize. So an act of seizure remain to be performed and, therefore, search cannot be said to be concluded. Hence, in 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 is prepared. In such

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

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

ITO-15(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRAVIR POLYMERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4) of the Act. The Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring the retraction made by the assessee." 6. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal and we do not find any infirmity in the said order. Learned advocate for the revenue is not M/s Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 22 ITA No. 2595/M/2019