GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

Section 43B of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 01/04/1988. The First Proviso made it clear that Section 43B shall not apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee in the next accounting year if it is paid on or before the due date for furnishing

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

172) 13 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases • CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (298 ITR 586) • All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT (137 ITD 287) 13. The learned CIT(A) observed that in this regard he would analyse in depth the provisions of section 153A and the case laws. He referred to the honourable Delhi High Court decision

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

172) 13 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases • CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (298 ITR 586) • All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT (137 ITD 287) 13. The learned CIT(A) observed that in this regard he would analyse in depth the provisions of section 153A and the case laws. He referred to the honourable Delhi High Court decision

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. Section 68, read with section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share Transaction) - Assessment year 2014-15- On basis of information from DGIT (Inv.), Kolkata that some companies were engaged in business of issuing pennystocks for which there were large number of beneficiaries claiming bogus long-term

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. Section 68, read with section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share Transaction) - Assessment year 2014-15- On basis of information from DGIT (Inv.), Kolkata that some companies were engaged in business of issuing pennystocks for which there were large number of beneficiaries claiming bogus long-term

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Section\n43B shall not apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by\nthe assessee in the next accounting year if it is paid on or before\nthe due date for furnishing the return of income in respect of the\nprevious year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred\nand the evidence of such

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

68 where intangible additions were made in the earlier years and hence such a view is untenable. In the case of CIT vs. Manik Sons (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that only if the unexplained cash credit can reasonably be related to the amount covered by the intangible addition made in the past, or in the very

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

68 where intangible additions were made in the earlier years and hence such a view is untenable. In the case of CIT vs. Manik Sons (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that only if the unexplained cash credit can reasonably be related to the amount covered by the intangible addition made in the past, or in the very

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

172 (All), wherein, the Income-tax Department had sent a requisition on 27-3-2002, under section 132A requisitioning the books of account and other documents seized by the Central Excise Department. The record of the proceeding dated 18-4-2002, showed that the requisition was not fully executed as all the books of account and other documents

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S LUXORA REALTORS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

68 of the Act only if assessee is unable to explain the credits appearing in the books. 28. Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. TRN Enersv Pvt Ltd held that share application money cannot be treated as unexplained credit if the AO does not make any investigation on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee

OLEANDER FARMS P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Transfer Of File To The Ao Of The Assessee. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere

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

68 of the Act by framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A vide order dated 27.12.2016. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.22,32,00,000/- by holding that the addition can not be made de hors

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

In the result, appeal for A

68 of the Act in respect of share application money received by the appellant is bad in law as the addition is not based on the material found during the course of search and that it pertained to non-abated assessment year. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not adjudicating and allowing

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

In the result, appeal for A

68 of the Act in respect of share application money received by the appellant is bad in law as the addition is not based on the material found during the course of search and that it pertained to non-abated assessment year. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not adjudicating and allowing