M/S. GYANSHANKAR INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P. LTD.(BEFORE AMALGAMATION M/S. STELLAR CREDIT& E-TRADING P. LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-7(1)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2012-13

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being amount received on account of Share capital and Share premium, without considering the facts of the case. 7. On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT Appeal erred in dismissing the ground that the learned Assessing officer has not provided Cross Examination with the alleged parties as categorically asked during

GEETA BABU SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which clearly states that any return of income, assessment, notice, summons, or other proceedings made or issued under the law will not be considered invalid solely due to mistakes, defects, or omissions, as long as the substance and purpose of the action align with the intent of the law. In other words, minor

DIAMOND DYE-CHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

68,613/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued. In compliance the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details. The A.O on perusal of the facts found that the assessee has international transactions with its associate enterprises

D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

68) rendered on similar facts and circumstances, wherein also the assessment order was quashed by this Tribunal, by holding as under: - “4. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that A.O. should have passed the assessment order under section 153C since satisfaction note was prepared

ACIT CC -7(1) , MUMBAI vs. DR. D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

68) rendered on similar facts and circumstances, wherein also the assessment order was quashed by this Tribunal, by holding as under: - “4. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that A.O. should have passed the assessment order under section 153C since satisfaction note was prepared

ACIT CENT. CIR -7(1) , MUMBAI vs. DR. D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

68) rendered on similar facts and circumstances, wherein also the assessment order was quashed by this Tribunal, by holding as under: - “4. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that A.O. should have passed the assessment order under section 153C since satisfaction note was prepared

SHRI. SWAPNIL BOBHATE,THANE vs. ITO WARD 28 (3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

292B of the Act. Further, on merits, learned CIT(A), in absence of any sworn statement of assessee’s friend and denial of statement of proprietor of Maladeep Construction and also in absence of documentary evidence such as distribution license, copies of bills and invoices, etc. upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SPOT LIGHT CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer - 8(3)(3) V. M/S. Spot Light Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor {Amalgamated With M/S. Valentine Aayakar Bhavan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.,} M.K. Road Flat No. 253, 25Th Floor Mumbai-400 020 Kalpataru Horizon, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400 031 Pan: Aalcs4106K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N. Kapadiaa & Shri Navinkumar Mishra Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

68 of the Act. In the course of the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order passed in the name of M/s. Spot Light Constructions Pvt. Ltd., as this company was amalgamated with M/s.Valentine Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., w.e.f. 19.10.2012 and since the Assessing Officer passed re-assessment order dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SUPERWAVE CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD.(AMALGAMATED WITH M/S.VALENTINE MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer - 8(3)(3) V. M/S. Superwave Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor {Amalgamated With M/S. Valentine Aayakar Bhavan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.,} Flat No. 253, 25Th Floor M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Kalpataru Horizon, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400 031 Pan: Aajcs3336H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N. Kapadia & Shri Navinkumar Mishra Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

68 of the Act. In the course of the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order passed in the name of M/s. Superwave Constructions Pvt. Ltd., as this company was amalgamated with M/s.Valentine Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., w.e.f. 19.10.2012 and since the Assessing Officer passed re-assessment order dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

292B of the Act.\nIn State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364.\nafter considering the case law on the point. The Division Bench\nanswered the questions in favour of the Revenue. It was held\nas under:\n33. We may summarise the principles emerging from the above\ndiscussion. (These are by no means intended to be exhaustive

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

292B of the Act.\nIn State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: [1996] 3 SCC 364.\nafter considering the case law on the point. The Division Bench\nanswered the questions in favour of the Revenue. It was held\nas under:\n33. We may summarise the principles emerging from the above\ndiscussion. (These are by no means intended to be exhaustive

HARMEET SINGH SABLOK,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal file by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohanshri Harmeet Singh Sablok Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3) A/24, Queens Park Premises Piramal Chambers Vs. Chs Ltd., Juhu, Santacruz (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400049 Pan - Airps3621D Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act, however, in appeal before CIT(A), the assessee relied upon the same judgment of Bhaichand N. Gandhi (supra). Hence, the CIT(A), by applying provisions of section 292B

JAYSHREE VINIT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,WD- 24 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68 & 69 of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,59,20,000/- and Rs.4,23,88,923/- respectively, as unexplained cash credit and investments made by the assessee. The impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2016 has not been signed by the AO and same is the case of demand notice dated 30.12.2016 and tax computation form. We would like to place

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), MUMBAI , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI vs. MONARCH TECHNOBUILD PRIVATE LIMTED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2012-13 C.O. No. 172/Mum/2024 A.Y. : 2012-13 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1287/M/24)

section 148 is bad in law, viod-ab-initio and ultra-vires the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in appreciating the fact that he had no jurisdiction to issue the notice in the name of the Respondent since the jurisdiction of the Respondent was with Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

DHANSHREE INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhanshree Infratech Vs. Ito-12(2)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 303, Western Edge 1, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, W.E. Highway, Borivali M.K. Road, (E), Mumbai – 66 Mumbai - 20 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagca7306J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Girish Dave Respondent By : Shailja Rai Date Of Hearing 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y. 2008-09. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit to the total income of the assessee. 5. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the assessee has filed additional ground of appeal on 24.02.2021 as under

ASHOK BALDEVBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.2 of the

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhashok Baldevbhai Patel Acit- 16(2), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 133, Enterprises Apartments, Forjett Hill Road, Tardeo, Vs. Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400007. Pan: Agipp8800B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Respondent By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act

68 was partly sustained to the extent of Rs. 12,50,000/-. Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred

AMISH R. KAPADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(30(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1858/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Amish R. Kapadia Ito, Ward – 12(3)(2), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Indian Mercantile Mansion, Madam Kama Road, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk 4127 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhirendra M. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. R. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.5.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2010, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 31.3.2009. The Only Issue In Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), Levied In The Sum Of Rs.6,08,170/-, I.E., At The Minimum Rate Of 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

68, which is superfluous, even if regarded as a commission, is saved by the provision of section 292B of the Act. 3.2 The basis

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SPECIALITY PAPERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68 as unexplained cash credit on his failure to submit the bank statements after repeated requests and thereby framed the assessment at the total income of Rs.29,98,49,650/- under section 144 of the Act. 5. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved

SPECIALITY PAPER LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 12, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68 as unexplained cash credit on his failure to submit the bank statements after repeated requests and thereby framed the assessment at the total income of Rs.29,98,49,650/- under section 144 of the Act. 5. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved