INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

price and the appellant offers no explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, Section him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, Section

SATGURU CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

price and the appellant offers no explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by explanation about such excess, amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, Section him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, Section

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

price including duties and taxes other than those duties and taxes subsequently recoverable by enterprise from the taxing authorities. Thus, it was submitted in alternative ITA.No,3890&4364/5063&5483/5165&5043/5166&5044/Mum/2016 M/s. Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai. that even if the said incentives are treated as capital receipt by tribunal, the taxes recoverable from Government are not part of the cost

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NARENDRA GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

price paid by the Government, the cost of the asset will be the price paid by the Government, the cost of the asset will be the price paid by the assessee for acquiring the asset. assessee for acquiring the asset. In the instant case, the allegation is In the instant case, the allegation is that at the time of Commissioner

SHARAD SEVANTILAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(6), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

price was agreed at Rs.3.15 crores in May 2015.\nFrom the perusal of the documents submitted we notice that the assessee while\npaying the advance has deducted tax at source and has filed the return in From\n26QB where the sale consideration is stated as Rs.3.15 crores (page 260 to 267 of\nPB). Further the assessee has submitted affidavits from

MRS SUNITA SHYAM MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - Whether where except statement of director of assessee- company offering additional income during survey in his premises, there was no other material either in form of cash, bullion, jewellery or document or in any other form to conclude that statement made was supported by some documentary evidence, said

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE MITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAXATION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

transferred through legitimate banking channels. The Assessee had produced the ledger of the said developer, the allotment letters and acknowledgment receipts issued by the developer, and its bank and loan statements which set out the transactions made. Such bank statements also show that no withdrawals of significant sums were made therefrom. Moreover, the agreed purchase consideration, as mentioned

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE,THANE vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

transferred through legitimate banking channels. The Assessee had produced the ledger of the said developer, the allotment letters and acknowledgment receipts issued by the developer, and its bank and loan statements which set out the transactions made. Such bank statements also show that no withdrawals of significant sums were made therefrom. Moreover, the agreed purchase consideration, as mentioned

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

pricing so determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh was\ncommunicated to him orally. In response to Question No. 17, he\nstated that the entire data relating to the sale of shops was\nmaintained by him in an Excel sheet. The learned Assessing Officer\nhas reproduced the relevant extracts of Shri Imran Ansari's\nstatement, covering Questions Nos.15

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

pricing so determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh was\ncommunicated to him orally. In response to Question No. 17, he\nITA Nos.6523 to 6525/MUM/2025\nstated that the entire data relating to the sale of shops was\nmaintained by him in an Excel sheet. The learned Assessing Officer\nhas reproduced the relevant extracts of Shri Imran Ansari's\nstatement, covering Questions Nos.15

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

pricing so determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh was\ncommunicated to him orally. In response to Question No. 17, he\nstated that the entire data relating to the sale of shops was\nmaintained by him in an Excel sheet. The learned Assessing Officer\nhas reproduced the relevant extracts of Shri Imran Ansari's\nstatement, covering Questions Nos.15

HILTON INFRASTRUCTURE ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

69B of\nthe Act. So, therefore, according to Shri Dudhwewala, since the\nAO did not make any addition on account of escaped income\nrepresented in form of undisclosed/unaccounted asset, the AO\ncould not have made any other addition like, in respect of credit\nentry u/s. 68 of the Act. For this, he relied on the decisions\nrendered by the case

HILTON INFRASTRUCUTRE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

69B of\nthe Act. So, therefore, according to Shri Dudhwewala, since the\nAO did not make any addition on account of escaped income\nrepresented in form of undisclosed/unaccounted asset, the AO\ncould not have made any other addition like, in respect of credit\nentry u/s. 68 of the Act. For this, he relied on the decisions\nrendered by the case

HILTON INFRASTRUCTURE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

69B of\nthe Act. So, therefore, according to Shri Dudhwewala, since the\nAO did not make any addition on account of escaped income\nrepresented in form of undisclosed/unaccounted asset, the AO\ncould not have made any other addition like, in respect of credit\nentry u/s. 68 of the Act. For this, he relied on the decisions\nrendered by the case

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BBE are reproduced hereunder: 115BBE. (1) Where the total income ofan assessee,- (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A,section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BBE are reproduced hereunder: 115BBE. (1) Where the total income ofan assessee,- (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A,section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section