MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer of undertakings in a tax demerger must be in the form of issuance of shares by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company. The resulting company is not allowed to discharge the purchase consideration through payment of cash. E. Explanation 3 and 7A to Section 43(1) and sixth proviso of Section 32(1) invoked

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer of undertakings in a tax demerger must be in the form of issuance of shares by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company. The resulting company is not allowed to discharge the purchase consideration through payment of cash. E. Explanation 3 and 7A to Section 43(1) and sixth proviso of Section 32(1) invoked

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI.50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer of undertakings in a tax demerger must be in the form of issuance of shares by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company. The resulting company is not allowed to discharge the purchase consideration through payment of cash. E. Explanation 3 and 7A to Section 43(1) and sixth proviso of Section 32(1) invoked

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL)--50, MUMAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer of undertakings in a tax demerger must be in the form of issuance of shares by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company. The resulting company is not allowed to discharge the purchase consideration through payment of cash. E. Explanation 3 and 7A to Section 43(1) and sixth proviso of Section 32(1) invoked

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not provided, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case. In every search and seizure action, the seizure is made in the presence of independent witnesses and a detailed Panchnama including how the electronic evidences were handled/seized is given to the search person. The appellant had conveniently omitted to refer

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not provided, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case. In every search and seizure action, the seizure is made in the presence of independent witnesses and a detailed Panchnama including how the electronic evidences were handled/seized is given to the search person. The appellant had conveniently omitted to refer

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not provided, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case. In every search and seizure action, the seizure is made in the presence of independent witnesses and a detailed Panchnama including how the electronic evidences were handled/seized is given to the search person. The appellant had conveniently omitted to refer

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not provided, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case. In every search and seizure action, the seizure is made in the presence of independent witnesses and a detailed Panchnama including how the electronic evidences were handled/seized is given to the search person. The appellant had conveniently omitted to refer

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not provided, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case. In every search and seizure action, the seizure is made in the presence of independent witnesses and a detailed Panchnama including how the electronic evidences were handled/seized is given to the search person. The appellant had conveniently omitted to refer

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not provided, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case. In every search and seizure action, the seizure is made in the presence of independent witnesses and a detailed Panchnama including how the electronic evidences were handled/seized is given to the search person. The appellant had conveniently omitted to refer

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNWON AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ) ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI-50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

transfer of undertakings in a\ntax demerger must be in the form of issuance of shares by\nthe resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged\ncompany. The resulting company is not allowed to\ndischarge the purchase consideration through payment of\ncash.\nE. Explanation 3 and 7A to Section 43(1) and sixth\nproviso of Section 32(1) invoked

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

transfer of undertakings in a\ntax demerger must be in the form of issuance of shares by\nthe resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged\ncompany. The resulting company is not allowed to\ndischarge the purchase consideration through payment of\ncash.\nE. Explanation 3 and 7A to Section 43(1) and sixth\nproviso of Section 32(1) invoked

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

ACIT CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. VINAYKUMAR SUDHAKAR DESHPANDE, SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the ground of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Vinaykumar Sudhakar Income Tax, Central Circle- 6(1) बनाम Deshpande Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, 528, Deshpande Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Near Bank Sangola, (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Solapur – 413 307, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpd0198H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

65B of the Indian Evidence P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2021-22 Vinaykumar Sudhakar Deshpande Act had been duly complied with. In the absence of such compliance, the electronic digital evidence could not be relied upon or used to the detriment of the respondent. The present addition was made expressly u/s 69C of the Act, holding