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

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

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, 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

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

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

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

68 of the Act. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix was considered and finally the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer was affirmed on the ground that the creditworthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transaction were not satisfactorily explained. 2.3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

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

1)", "Section 147", "Section 10(38)", "Section 68", "Section 153A", "Section 153C", "Section 148", "Section 132

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

section 80HHC of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the profit earned by valuing finished goods is notional imaginary profit which could not be taxed. In view of the above, it is argued that appreciation in value of investments cannot be taken into account. The netting off of appreciation against the depreciation within a classification is therefore contrary

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 of the Act in the order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in derivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee. 3. It is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has inadvertently filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

132 for which the last of authorisations is executed;\nor\n(c) a requisition made under section 132A,\nafter the 15th day of March of such financial year, a period of fifteen days\nshall be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation as per\nthis section and the notice issued under clause (b) of section