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

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

68 held that the Tribunal held that the sale was a slump sale if it was a sale of a going concern, even if some of the assets were retained by the transferor and sections 50 and 50A of the Act were not applicable. In this case, the assessee has transferred a business asset and the business asset

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n7\nITA Nos.7532/MUM/2004 & others\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nAYs 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001-02\nCorporate Deposits\n1,301,388,075\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\n2,761,916\nIDBI Deposits\n92,632,663\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\n774,655,522\nGovernment Securities\n127

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

In the result, appeal for A

68 of the Act. As per ld. DR in the complete chain, there is neither actual existence of any entity nor could assessee prove during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. Ld. CIT DR relied on the decision in the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 169, Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 82 CCH 133 Delhi

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

In the result, appeal for A

68 of the Act. As per ld. DR in the complete chain, there is neither actual existence of any entity nor could assessee prove during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. Ld. CIT DR relied on the decision in the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 169, Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 82 CCH 133 Delhi

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

In the result, appeal for A

68 of the Act. As per ld. DR in the complete chain, there is neither actual existence of any entity nor could assessee prove during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. Ld. CIT DR relied on the decision in the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 169, Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 82 CCH 133 Delhi

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 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.80,45,300/- against accommodation entry received i.e. basis on the which assessment was reopened. In this manner, the Assessing Officer made total addition of Rs.28

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 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.80,45,300/- against accommodation entry received i.e. basis on the which assessment was reopened. In this manner, the Assessing Officer made total addition of Rs.28

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\n1,301,388,075\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\n2,761,916\nIDBI Deposits\n92,632,663\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\n774,655,522\nGovernment Securities\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\n1,225,179\nDiscount

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n2\n3\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills\nLease Rentals\nDividend Income\nProfit on Sale of Investment\nProfit on redemption of Debentures/Govt.\nSecurities\nProfit on sale of Debentures/Govt

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n2\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills\nLease Rentals\nDividend Income\nProfit on Sale of Investment\nProfit on redemption of Debentures/Govt.\nSecurities\nProfit on sale of Debentures/\nSecurities