MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICAL LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

32 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, Additional Commissioner was well within his competence to pass the impugned assessment order. It was further submitted that as per section 2(28C), Joint Commissioner includes

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

32 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, Additional Commissioner was well within his competence to pass the impugned assessment order. It was further submitted that as per section 2(28C), Joint Commissioner includes

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

32 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, Additional Commissioner was well within his competence to pass the impugned assessment order. It was further submitted that as per section 2(28C), Joint Commissioner includes

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING P.LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

32 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, Additional Commissioner was well within his competence to pass the impugned assessment order. It was further submitted that as per section 2(28C), Joint Commissioner includes

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

32 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 and argued that all the Additional" Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction upon all the assesses falling in their respective ranges and therefore, Additional Commissioner was well within his competence to pass the impugned assessment order. It was further submitted that as per section 2(28C), Joint Commissioner includes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4.1 , THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MARYADT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

32,763/- 2,78,60,607/- 50,000/- 2018-19 31.10.2018 1,33,110/- 2,94,38,661/- 3,50,44,331/- 50,000/- AY 2017-18 ITA.No.918/Mum/2024 - Assessee's appeal & ITA.No.2441/Mum/2024 – Revenue's appeal 3. During the course assessment the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has allocated certain expenses between the business income and income

JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,PALGHAR vs. ITO, CIR-4 , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

32,763/- 2,78,60,607/- 50,000/- 2018-19 31.10.2018 1,33,110/- 2,94,38,661/- 3,50,44,331/- 50,000/- AY 2017-18 ITA.No.918/Mum/2024 - Assessee's appeal & ITA.No.2441/Mum/2024 – Revenue's appeal 3. During the course assessment the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has allocated certain expenses between the business income and income

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

32. In the aforesaid case as the addition was made on account of unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act. The material furnished by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDI MARYADIT, VASAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are\nallowed

68,136 towards income from\nbusiness. The AO also made an addition under section 69A towards cash deposited\nduring the demonetization period to the tune of Rs.60,61,500/-.\n4.\nAggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)\nheld that the AO is not correct in making addition by reallocating the expenses\nthereby making

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

68 of the act in case the transaction is not found to be a valid gift without appreciating that the same has no implication on the taxability of receipt of shares in the hands of the appellate as the same is not taxable u/s 56 (2)(viia) of the act 7) erred in not appreciating that whether the transaction

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

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

32 of the\nFinancial Statement of the assessee, it is evident that the difference between\nthe fair value of the consideration paid and the fair value of net assets taken\nover, i.e. amounting to ₹ 2703 lakh was recognised by the assessee as Other\nComprehensive Income not to be reclassified to profit and loss and\naccumulated in equity as capital reserves