D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

price of some properties sold during the year, under section 43CA of the Act. under section 43CA of the Act. 6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

153C of the Act is\nmore restrictive and can be initiated only on the basis of the seized or\nrequisitioned documents or books of accounts or information contained therein\nrelating to the assessee. Further, from the perusal of the reasons recorded for\nreopening the assessment in the case of Mr. Nilesh Bharani (supra), as noted\non pages

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RUPESH KANTILAL SAVLA, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

price of the shares of Rs. 2,45,83,280/- and\nclaimed exempt income from LTCG of Rs. 2,44,82,483/- u/s 10(38).\nThus,it was observed that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG of Rs.\n2,44,82,483/-.On the basis of this information, the assessment was\nreopened u/s 147 and notice

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

153C of the Act is\nmore restrictive and can be initiated only on the basis of the seized or\nrequisitioned documents or books of accounts or information contained therein\nrelating to the assessee. Further, from the perusal of the reasons recorded for\nreopening the assessment in the case of Mr. Nilesh Bharani (supra), as noted\non pages

RUPESH KANTILAL SAVLA ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 20(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

price of the shares of Rs. 2,45,83,280/- and\nclaimed exempt income from LTCG of Rs. 2,44,82,483/- u/s 10(38).\nThus,it was observed that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG of Rs.\n2,44,82,483/-.On the basis of this information, the assessment was\nreopened u/s 147 and notice

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), CENTRAL RANGE - 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

price of some properties sold during the year, under section 43CA of the Act.\n6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB(1A) of the Act be dropped.\nD G Land Developers

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

price of some properties sold during the year,\nunder section 43CA of the Act.\n6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274\nr.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The\nAppellant prays that the penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s\n271AAB(1A) of the Act be dropped.\n7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer under section 127, all proceedings past, pending, and prospective, shift with it, as made abundantly clear in the Explanation to that section. The officer who has lost jurisdiction becomes a persona non grata to that file; any action initiated by such an officer thereafter is bereft of legal sanctity. Consequently, as the very substratum of the reassessment, the notice

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

153C in the oceedings u/s 153C in the case of the assessee. The present assessment year, being year of case of the assessee. The present assessment year, being case of the assessee. The present assessment year, being unabated assessment, unabated assessment, no addition could not have been the assessee no addition could not have been the assessee without

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

153C in the oceedings u/s 153C in the case of the assessee. The present assessment year, being year of case of the assessee. The present assessment year, being case of the assessee. The present assessment year, being unabated assessment, unabated assessment, no addition could not have been the assessee no addition could not have been the assessee without

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transferred from the ITO 27(3)(2) Mumbai to ITO Ward 21(3)(1) Mumbai. Since, this legal requirement to assume jurisdiction by the AO who passed the assessment order in this appeal is completely missing, we are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee as above which were also not controverted on facts

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

transferred from the ITO 27(3)(2) Mumbai to ITO Ward 21(3)(1) Mumbai. Since, this legal requirement to assume jurisdiction by the AO who passed the assessment order in this appeal is completely missing, we are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee as above which were also not controverted on facts