MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

seizure took place on 4/2/2016, and consequent by notice u/s 153A was issued. He categorically submitted that, by the date of search AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 were concluded assessment, which could have only been disturbed based on incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that in respect of national income from house property

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

seizure took place on 4/2/2016, and consequent by notice u/s 153A was issued. He categorically submitted that, by the date of search AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 were concluded assessment, which could have only been disturbed based on incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that in respect of national income from house property

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

seizure took place on 4/2/2016, and consequent by notice u/s 153A was issued. He categorically submitted that, by the date of search AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 were concluded assessment, which could have only been disturbed based on incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that in respect of national income from house property

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

seizure took place on 4/2/2016, and consequent by notice u/s 153A was issued. He categorically submitted that, by the date of search AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 were concluded assessment, which could have only been disturbed based on incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that in respect of national income from house property

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

seizure took place on 4/2/2016, and consequent by notice u/s 153A was issued. He categorically submitted that, by the date of search AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 were concluded assessment, which could have only been disturbed based on incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that in respect of national income from house property

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

seizure took place on 4/2/2016, and consequent by notice u/s 153A was issued. He categorically submitted that, by the date of search AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 were concluded assessment, which could have only been disturbed based on incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that in respect of national income from house property

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

search and seizure cases, the\nconcept of pecuniary jurisdiction has no application, as search assessments are\nnot assigned to any Income-tax Officer. The lowest authority empowered to\ncomplete a search assessment is the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax or\nDeputy Commissioner of Income-tax. We note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nin Chaudhury Skin Trading Company

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

seizure tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) action u/s 132(1) of the Income action u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out at the premises of was carried out at the premises of the assessee along with cases of the assessee along with cases of onsequent to search action

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL).During the course of the said search action, it was Ltd. (RHIL).During the course of the said search action, it was Ltd. (RHIL).During the course of the said search action, it was Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria alleged on the basis of the alleged on the basis of the material gathered that the assessee material

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL).During the course of the said search action, it was Ltd. (RHIL).During the course of the said search action, it was Ltd. (RHIL).During the course of the said search action, it was Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria alleged on the basis of the alleged on the basis of the material gathered that the assessee material