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

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

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

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

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

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

68", "Section 153A", "Section 153C", "Section 148", "Section 132", "Section 132A", "Section 131" ], "issues

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

132 of the Act was also\ncarried out on the assessee on 26/05/2017 at the head office of the assessee\nat Ahmednagar along with branch offices at Mumbai, Ulhasnagar, and\nresidences of key persons of the assessee, who handled the business affairs of\nthe assessee. Simultaneously, survey actions under section 133A of the Act\nwere also carried

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

132 of the Act was also\ncarried out on the assessee on 26/05/2017 at the head office of the assessee\nat Ahmednagar along with branch offices at Mumbai, Ulhasnagar, and\nresidences of key persons of the assessee, who handled the business affairs of\nthe assessee. Simultaneously, survey actions under section 133A of the Act\nwere also carried