DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price, made a reference to the DVO under Section 142A. The DVO estimated the market value of the property at an amount which was much higher than the amount shown in the document. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the two figures as undisclosed investment. It was in this background that this Court held that the report

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price, made a reference to the DVO under Section 142A. The DVO estimated the market value of the property at an amount which was much higher than the amount shown in the document. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the two figures as undisclosed investment. It was in this background that this Court held that the report

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price, made a reference to the DVO under Section 142A. The DVO estimated the market value of the property at an amount which was much higher than the amount shown in the document. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the two figures as undisclosed investment. It was in this background that this Court held that the report

GOODWILL CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

transferred any land or building in the year under appeal, the provisions of section 43CA were not attracted and therefore the addition of Rs.24,47,250/- was required to be deleted. 2. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,47,250/- u/s 43CA of the I.T Act 1961, on account of difference between the actual

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, (a) all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed, (b) Cross Objection 1 (1

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer was directed not to pass final order. Thereafter, vide final order dated 20/12/2018 passed in the aforesaid writ petition [reported in (2019) 410 ITR 247], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed the reference to the TPO. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, completed the assessment and passed Assessment Order on 15/02/2019. 4. The Assessee preferred appeal before

HARSHAD KUMAR AND BROS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18 (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2013-14

price of the property for proposed addition u/s 69B of the Act. 5. Simultaneously the AO also referred the valuation of the property to DVO-I, Mumbai vide reference letter dated 25.02.2016. 6. The Assessee in the meantime in response to the show cause notice dated 07.03.2016, filed its reply substantiating the value of the property to the tune

MRS. RUCHITA JINDAL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI

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

section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in making addition in AY 2015-16 instead of AY 2014-15. P a g e | 2 Mrs.Ruchita Jindal Vs. DCIT, CC 3(3) 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned