ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY 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

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

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. 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

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. 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

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

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

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

68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1

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

68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1

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

68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1

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

153A", "Section 153C", "Section 148", "Section 132", "Section 132A", "Section 131" ], "issues": "1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act were valid, or if Section 153C should have been invoked.\n2. Whether the addition of sale proceeds of shares as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

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

68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1

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

68\nof the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition on\naccount of undisclosed asset which is sine qua non/pre\ncondition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment\nunder section 153A for the relevant AY/ AYs' as per „fourth\nproviso' to section 153A(1