PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

68 8 enhancement Rs. made by the 97,83,899 on learned CIT – A account of on account of deposit in personal balance bank sheet and profit accounts ITA no. 7329 & 3851/Mum/2016 Pramod Ratan Patil; A.Y. 11–12 and loss account cash deposit of ₹ 4,00,500 in Kotak bank account on account of other income of ₹ 516,277 Total

ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

68 8 enhancement Rs. made by the 97,83,899 on learned CIT – A account of on account of deposit in personal balance bank sheet and profit accounts ITA no. 7329 & 3851/Mum/2016 Pramod Ratan Patil; A.Y. 11–12 and loss account cash deposit of ₹ 4,00,500 in Kotak bank account on account of other income of ₹ 516,277 Total

LATE SHRI MOHAN RAJ CHHAJED (THROUGH LEGAL JEOR SHANTILAL CHHAJED),MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Through Legal Heir Shantilal Pali Rajasthan-306-401. Chhajed), Vs. 601, Shilpa Apartments, C.D. Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaipc 6614 N Appellant Respondent

68,262/- out of the interest expenditure of out of the interest expenditure of ₹ ₹5,99,818/- for interest-free advances to relatives. In this manner free advances to relatives. In this manner free advances to relatives. In this manner, the Assessing Officer after allowing after allowing deduction under Chapter VI-A, A, assessed total income

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

section 68 by an amount of Rs. 3,25,27,267 as proposed by him. With respect to the balance loans amounting to Rs.59,49,20

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

section 68 by an amount of Rs. 3,25,27,267 as proposed by him. With respect to the balance loans amounting to Rs.59,49,20

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

3) read with section 153A of the Act, came to the conclusion that the assessee is not a bank within the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and therefore is not empowered to carry on the business of banking. It was further held that the assessee is a credit co-operative society, which is empowered to mobilise deposits

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

3) read with section 153A of the Act, came to the conclusion that the assessee is not a bank within the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and therefore is not empowered to carry on the business of banking. It was further held that the assessee is a credit co-operative society, which is empowered to mobilise deposits

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

3) read with section 153A of the Act, came to the conclusion that the assessee is not a bank within the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and therefore is not empowered to carry on the business of banking. It was further held that the assessee is a credit co-operative society, which is empowered to mobilise deposits

DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

20,000/- as deemed income as deemed income by virtue of the section 60 of the Act holding it as forming part of by virtue of the section 60 of the Act holding it as forming part of by virtue of the section 60 of the Act holding it as forming part of the matured policy amount

UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

20,000/- as deemed income as deemed income by virtue of the section 60 of the Act holding it as forming part of by virtue of the section 60 of the Act holding it as forming part of by virtue of the section 60 of the Act holding it as forming part of the matured policy amount

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

3) read with section 153A of the Act, came to the conclusion that the assessee is not a bank within the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and therefore is not empowered to carry on the business of banking. It was further held that the assessee is a credit co-operative society, which is empowered to mobilise deposits

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

3) read with section 153A of the Act, came to the conclusion that the assessee is not a bank within the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and therefore is not empowered to carry on the business of banking. It was further held that the assessee is a credit co-operative society, which is empowered to mobilise deposits

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

20-25][Para 9 & 11] it is held as under: Recourse to Section 132(3) can be taken only when the authorised officer believes that particular asset found during Search represent undisclosed asset. Section 132(3) order cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention

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

20-25][Para 9 & 11] it is held as under: Recourse to Section 132(3) can be taken only when the authorised officer believes that particular asset found during Search represent undisclosed asset. Section 132(3) order cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention

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

20-25][Para 9 & 11] it is held as under: Recourse to Section 132(3) can be taken only when the authorised officer believes that particular asset found during Search represent undisclosed asset. Section 132(3) order cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention

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

20-25][Para 9 & 11] it is held as under: Recourse to Section 132(3) can be taken only when the authorised officer believes that particular asset found during Search represent undisclosed asset. Section 132(3) order cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention

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

20-25][Para 9 & 11] it is held as under: Recourse to Section 132(3) can be taken only when the authorised officer believes that particular asset found during Search represent undisclosed asset. Section 132(3) order cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention

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

20-25][Para 9 & 11] it is held as under: Recourse to Section 132(3) can be taken only when the authorised officer believes that particular asset found during Search represent undisclosed asset. Section 132(3) order cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention