THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) has been challenged, whereas, in the appeal of the Revenue, the addition made under section 68

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

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

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M PALLONJI ENERPRISES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act Act. In this manner, he assessed total income at he assessed total income at ₹279,54,39,100/- in the reassessment order dated 30/03/2015. On in the reassessment order dated 30/03/2015. On in the reassessment order dated 30/03/2015. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), sustained the validity

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

68 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 or recomputation, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice under sub-section (1) of section 148 ; (iii) the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other

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

147 instead of Section 153C. Regarding Ground No. 2, concerning the addition of INR 59,24,273/- under Section 68

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

147 \nof the Act was partly allowed. \n152. The Assessee has raised 4 grounds of appeal. We would first \ntake up Ground No. 2 to 4 raised by the Assessee dealing with \nthe merits of the disallowance/additions made by the Assessing \nOfficer \nGround No.2 to 4: \n153. Ground No.2 to 4 pertaining to disallowance made in respect of \npayments made

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

147 were valid, or if the AO should have invoked Section 153C, and whether the additions made under Sections 68

JAY MA DURGA BUILDTECH P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

147 on the ground that even though net worth of company was low, yet it had issued shares at a huge premium. The Assessing Officer thus taking a view that share transaction was not genuine and amount of share premium was liable to be taxed under section 68

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 147 of the Act ignoring the settled position of law that the AO before assuming settled position of law that the AO before assuming settled position of law that the AO before assuming jurisdiction us 147 of the Act is required to make some jurisdiction us 147 of the Act is required to make some jurisdiction us 147

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 147 of the Act ignoring the settled position of law that the AO before assuming settled position of law that the AO before assuming settled position of law that the AO before assuming jurisdiction us 147 of the Act is required to make some jurisdiction us 147 of the Act is required to make some jurisdiction us 147

ITO 8(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SENTIA DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the re challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings as well as assessment proceedings as well as addition

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

147 of the Act, made additions of the Act, made additions of ₹1,60,00,000/– towards unsec towards unsecured loans and ₹20,00,000/– towards share application money under section towards share application money under section towards share application money under section 68

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

147 of the Act, made additions of the Act, made additions of ₹1,60,00,000/– towards unsec towards unsecured loans and ₹20,00,000/– towards share application money under section towards share application money under section towards share application money under section 68

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

sections": [ "10(38)", "68", "69C", "143(3)", "147", "148", "153A", "153C", "132", "132(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer