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

3) 9,98,000 5 Cash deposit under section 68 ₹ 1,050,000 6 Undisclosed income from Lodha dwellers ₹ 14,476,200

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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

68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. First of all, we take up legal ground regarding challenging the order of assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. In this regard Ld. AR & Ld. DR relied

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\nassessees are stands allowed

200 SIM Cards were seized\nand backup of one server was taken on 24.05.2021. Such an\norder does not extend the search.\n\n2) In Om Parkash Jindal vs Union of India [1976] 104 ITR 389\n(P&H) [Pg_6-13] it is held as under:\n\n[Rel Pg 10-11]. Restraint order u/s 132(3

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

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

68,71,018, as a dividend from M/s\nAlexandria Carbon Black Company S.A.E., a company\nincorporated and registered under the laws of Egypt (U.A.R.). It\nis the plea of the assessee that the aforesaid dividend received\nfrom the Egyptian company is not taxable in India.\n48. We find that the coordinate bench, vide order dated\n23/06/2023, passed in assessee

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

200(3) penalty is leviable u/s.272(A)(2k) of the I.T. Act. The appellant stated that software was not user friendly which led to delay in filing of return. The assessee has to manage his affairs in such manner that statutory compliances are met on time. Therefore, in absence of reasonable cause being demonstrated by the appellant, the action

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

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