Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.78 seconds)
Documents citing Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, ... vs Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Cen Rg 4, Mumbai on 27 December, 2017

M/S. Growmore Research & Assets ... vs Dcit Cent. Cir. - 4(3), Mumbai on 30 March, 2021

97. Since the facts of the instant issue before us is identical vis-à-vis the coordinate bench decision supra, we accordingly, direct the AO to re-compute the interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in terms of the above decision after reducing the amount of tax deductible at source on the income assessed. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Accordingly, the ground No.18 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 56 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dcit Cen Cir 4(1),Central Range-4, ... vs Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta (Through ... on 14 January, 2019

29.1. The Ld. Counsel argued that the issue of levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA no. 1219/Mum/2017 vide its order dated 27.12.2017. He stated that as per the order, the Tribunal has held that the provisions of section 234A, 234B and 234C being mandatory in nature, is chargeable even to a person notified under the TORTS Act. As per the order, it was further held interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C should be recomputed after considering the amount of tax deductible at source on the income assessed. In view of the above, it is prayed that the AO be directed to re-compute the interest u/s 234A and 234B accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pratima Hitesh Mehta ,Mumbai vs Dcit, Cc -4(1), Mumbai on 17 October, 2025

17. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Growmore Leasing and Investment Ltd v/s DCIT, in ITA No. 2192/Mum/2015, dated 17/11/2017 and in Hitesh S. Mehta v/s ACIT, in ITA No. 5190/Mum./2017, dated 31/08/2020, wherein the addition made on the basis of Custodian Letter was directed to be deleted. We are of the view that even if addition made on the basis of Custodian Letter, in the present case, is deleted following the aforesaid decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the actual shareholding of the assessee still has to be determined. We further find that the aforesaid clarification dated 28/11/2017, issued by the Custodian was not brought to the notice of the coordinate bench in the decisions relied upon by the learned AR in the Harshad Mehta group cases. It is also undisputed that the said clarification dated 28/11/2017, as was sought in the case of one of the assessee of the Harshad Mehta Group, was neither considered by any of the lower authorities nor similar clarification was sought in the case of the assessee while determining the shareholding in the hands of the assessee on the basis of information received from the Custodian. Therefore, in view of the above, the total addition of Rs.4,70,49,835, on the basis of the Custodian letter is not sustainable and thus is directed to be deleted, since the information received from the Custodian was not correctly appreciated. Further, we deem it appropriate to remand the determination of shareholding in the hands of the assessee on the basis of information received from the Custodian to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. We further direct the AO to also consider the information received from various companies while determining the shareholding in the hands of the assessee. We further direct the AO to consider any other information as may be furnished by the assessee in support of her submission regarding the actual shareholding in various companies. The AO shall be at liberty to seek any clarification from the Custodian in this regard. Accordingly, the AO is directed to re-adjudicate this aspect of the addition as per our aforesaid 7 ITA No. 232/Mum/2025 Pratima Hitesh Mehta AY 1992-93 directions. As a result, the cross-appeals limited to this issue are allowed for statistical purposes."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs Dcit - 15(2)(1), Mumbai on 13 July, 2018

Court), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Anusandhan Investment Ltd. vs DCIT 287 ITR 482 and Piaggio Vhicles Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 290 ITR 377 (Bom.) held that in a case of reopening after four years subsequent to scrutiny assessment, contradiction was recovered by between tax audit report and return of income, it was a case of omissions and/or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts for computation of income, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and the factual matrix narrated before us, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, the on the impugned issue of validity of reopening, we upheld the same, resulting in to, dismissal of appeal of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 160 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai on 25 September, 2018

Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) and 143(2) were issued and served upon the assessee. Another notice under section 142(1) dated 24.11.2014, was served upon the assessee calling for specific details. As per the Revenue, assessee could not submit the documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction/purchases of the said parties. Even no confirmation from the parties was submitted. Even the addresses of the parties were not furnished by the assessee. Thus, we found that there was fresh information with the Assessing Officer, which in our view, entitle the Assessing Officer to have prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Claggett Brachi 41 ITA No.3236/Mum/2016 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd Company Ltd. vs CIT 177 ITR 409 (Supreme Court), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Anusandhan Investment Ltd. vs DCIT 287 ITR 482 and Piaggio Vhicles Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 290 ITR 377 (Bom.) held that in a case of reopening after four years subsequent to scrutiny assessment, contradiction was recovered by between tax audit report and return of income, it was a case of omissions and/or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts for computation of income, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and the factual matrix narrated before us, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, the on the impugned issue of validity of reopening, we uphold the same, resulting in to, dismissal of the ground raised by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 151 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Pratima Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs Dcit, Cc-4(1), Mumbai on 26 October, 2023

17. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Growmore Leasing and Investment Ltd v/s DCIT, in ITA No. 2192/Mum/2015, dated 17/11/2017 and in Hitesh S. Mehta v/s ACIT, in ITA No. 5190/Mum./2017, dated 31/08/2020, wherein the addition made on the basis of Custodian Letter was directed to be deleted. We are of the view that even if addition made on the basis of Custodian Letter, in the present case, is deleted following the aforesaid decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the actual shareholding of the assessee still has to be determined. We further find that the aforesaid clarification dated 28/11/2017, issued by the Custodian was not brought to the notice of the coordinate bench in the decisions relied upon by the learned AR in the Harshad Mehta group cases. It is also undisputed that the said clarification dated 28/11/2017, as was sought in the case of one of the assessee of the Harshad Mehta Group, was neither considered by any of the lower authorities nor similar clarification was sought in the case of the assessee while determining the shareholding in the hands of the assessee on the basis of information received from the Custodian. Therefore, in view of the above, the total addition of Rs.4,70,49,835, on the basis of the Custodian letter is not sustainable and thus is directed to be deleted, since the information received from the Custodian was not correctly appreciated. Further, we deem it appropriate to remand the determination of shareholding in the hands of the assessee on the basis of information received from the Custodian to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. We further direct the AO to also consider the information received from various companies while determining the shareholding in the hands of the assessee. We further direct the AO to consider any other Page | 15 Pratima Hitesh Mehta ITA no.416/Mum./2023 ITA no.1180/Mum./2023 information as may be furnished by the assessee in support of her submission regarding the actual shareholding in various companies. The AO shall be at liberty to seek any clarification from the Custodian in this regard. Accordingly, the AO is directed to re-adjudicate this aspect of the addition as per our aforesaid directions. As a result, the cross-appeals limited to this issue are allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cent ... vs Smt Pratima H. Mehta, Mumbai on 26 October, 2023

17. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Growmore Leasing and Investment Ltd v/s DCIT, in ITA No. 2192/Mum/2015, dated 17/11/2017 and in Hitesh S. Mehta v/s ACIT, in ITA No. 5190/Mum./2017, dated 31/08/2020, wherein the addition made on the basis of Custodian Letter was directed to be deleted. We are of the view that even if addition made on the basis of Custodian Letter, in the present case, is deleted following the aforesaid decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the actual shareholding of the assessee still has to be determined. We further find that the aforesaid clarification dated 28/11/2017, issued by the Custodian was not brought to the notice of the coordinate bench in the decisions relied upon by the learned AR in the Harshad Mehta group cases. It is also undisputed that the said clarification dated 28/11/2017, as was sought in the case of one of the assessee of the Harshad Mehta Group, was neither considered by any of the lower authorities nor similar clarification was sought in the case of the assessee while determining the shareholding in the hands of the assessee on the basis of information received from the Custodian. Therefore, in view of the above, the total addition of Rs.4,70,49,835, on the basis of the Custodian letter is not sustainable and thus is directed to be deleted, since the information received from the Custodian was not correctly appreciated. Further, we deem it appropriate to remand the determination of shareholding in the hands of the assessee on the basis of information received from the Custodian to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. We further direct the AO to also consider the information received from various companies while determining the shareholding in the hands of the assessee. We further direct the AO to consider any other Page | 15 Pratima Hitesh Mehta ITA no.416/Mum./2023 ITA no.1180/Mum./2023 information as may be furnished by the assessee in support of her submission regarding the actual shareholding in various companies. The AO shall be at liberty to seek any clarification from the Custodian in this regard. Accordingly, the AO is directed to re-adjudicate this aspect of the addition as per our aforesaid directions. As a result, the cross-appeals limited to this issue are allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Shri Sudhir Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai on 6 February, 2025

"13. The second amount of addition of Rs.24,24,385/- as stated in para 8 above represented the addition made on the basis of Custodian letter. We observed that Rs.24,24,385/- was made on the basis of Custodian letter dated 29.10.1993. The I.T.A. No. 417/Mum/2023 I.T.A. No. 1179/Mum/2023 20 information provided in the said letter were incomplete. For example the date of determination of the share holdings was not mentioned, constant change of the figure of holding due to reasons like non-consideration of sale of shares by notified parties, and the holding provided by the Custodian not matching with the companies letters. Therefore, the addition made by relying on the Custodian letter can not be confirmed. The case of the assessee is supported by the decision of the coordinate bench in Growmore Leasing & Investments Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA. No.2192/M/2015 A.Y.1992-93 wherein it was held that where there was no evidence of the holdings of shares and securities as alleged by the revenue, the addition has to be deleted. Considering these facts and circumstances and the coordinate bench decision, we set aside the addition of Rs.24,24,385/ sustained by CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next