ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

1). 11. In the present case, as contended by Shri Mani, 11. In the present case, as contended by Shri Mani, 11. In the present case, as contended by Shri Mani, learned counsel for the assessee, the assessment for learned counsel for the assessee, the assessment for learned counsel for the assessee, the assessment for the assessment year

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

68, the burden can be said to have shifted to the Revenue to prove ingenuity of such transactions.” 16. In view of the above, the contention of ld. AR was that the addition made on merit has also no legs to stand. 17. On other hand, ld. DR contended that as per scheme of Section 153A, once an action

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

68, the burden can be said to have shifted to the Revenue to prove ingenuity of such transactions.” 16. In view of the above, the contention of ld. AR was that the addition made on merit has also no legs to stand. 17. On other hand, ld. DR contended that as per scheme of Section 153A, once an action

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

68, the burden can be said to have shifted to the Revenue to prove ingenuity of such transactions.” 16. In view of the above, the contention of ld. AR was that the addition made on merit has also no legs to stand. 17. On other hand, ld. DR contended that as per scheme of Section 153A, once an action

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

68 and disallowance of Rs. 1,01,300 under section 14A, are beyond the scope of section 153A

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth proviso' to section 153A(1

ANIL MAHAVIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

153A(1) of the Act. As a consequence, the Ground raised by the assessee in its cross- objection is allowed. 7.15 Resultantly, the ultimate decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of (i) Advances received from customers considered unexplained under section 68

ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. ANIL M. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

153A(1) of the Act. As a consequence, the Ground raised by the assessee in its cross- objection is allowed. 7.15 Resultantly, the ultimate decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of (i) Advances received from customers considered unexplained under section 68

SHRI MOHAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

68,079 Emirates Rupani 09 Total A 6,44,879 Funds given by Mohan Thakur to Desiree Ann Thakur 20.03.2008 43,407 Ireland Hugo Merry 2008-09 37.5367 16,29,355 Stud Farm 18.03.2008 10,713 Unknown Callbrated 2008-09 37.7547 4,04,466 colur 07.11.2007 1,30,659 Hong Kong Golden 2008-09 36.3154 47,44,933 Dragon

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

1. The order of the assessing officer is erroneous on the facts and in the law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case he ought to have accepted the returned income. 2. The Ld. Assessing officer has erred in initiating the proceedings under section 153A of the IT Act, 1961 and the assessment order is without

PRATYAKSHA PROPERTIES P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

section 153A for which assessments shall be made for each of six assessment years separately - Held, yes - Whether no addition can be made in respect of unabated assessments which have become final if no incriminating material is found during search - Held, yes [Paras 28, 29 & 30][In favour of assessee] a) Latest decision of Hon. Enterprises vs. ACIT 383/Del/2013

PRATYAKSHA PROPERTIES P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

section 153A for which assessments shall be made for each of six assessment years separately - Held, yes - Whether no addition can be made in respect of unabated assessments which have become final if no incriminating material is found during search - Held, yes [Paras 28, 29 & 30][In favour of assessee] a) Latest decision of Hon. Enterprises vs. ACIT 383/Del/2013

RAMESH SUMERMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 36, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarसर्वश्री सक्तिक्िि डे, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं रािेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.414/Mum/2010 (यनधावरण र्र्व / Assessment Years : 2001-02) Shri Ramesh Sumermal Shah, बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 220, Commerce House, Circle 36, Vs. 140 N M Road, Fort, 11/43, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aagps9863H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Prawin Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing :28.4.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement :28 .11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumarthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 13/11/2009 Of Ld. Cit(Appeals)-41 Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2001-02 Passed Against The Assessment Framed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Called The Act). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case He Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,25,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Disbelieving Gift Received By The Appellant”

1). 11. In the present case, as contended by Shri Mani, learned counsel for the assessee, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99 was finalised on 29-12-2000 and search was conducted thereafter on 3-12-2003. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, initiation of proceedings under Section 153A would not affect the assessment finalised

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 153A and making addition while passing the order u7s. 143(3) rws 153A amounting to Rs. 7,91,00,0007- in respect of investments made by GSD Trading & Financial Pvt. Ltd. in the share capital of the company be deleted. Without prejudice to grounds 1 to 5: 6. On the facts & circumstances of the case the Ld. Commr