147 of the Act. (d) In Aipita Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HSBC Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 PAN: AABCH0007N ...... Appellant Vs. ITO-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Niraj Sheth, AR Respondent by : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 28/02/2022 Date of pronouncement : 29/04/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [h…

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank for Agriculature and Rural Developement, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () A.C.I.T-3(2)(2) National Bank For Agriculture & R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Rural Development, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai -400 020 Complex,Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaact4020G (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

…the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that in absence of new material on record which could form basis for recording reasons for reassessment; it would be a change of opinion which is not permissible u/s. 147 of the Act. (d) In Aipita Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (21 SOT 302) (Mum.), the Hon'ble jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal has held that in the absence of any new material, the AO is not empowered to reopen an assessment irrespective of whether it is made u/s 143(1) or 143(3). (e) Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in Bapalal & Co. Exports v. JCIT (289 ITR 37) (Mad.) wherein it has been…

Brics Gilt Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5320/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Brics Gilt Finance Ltd. Dcit Cir 1(1)(1), Now Known As M/S Brics Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ Gilt Finance Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, 1St Floor, Sadhna House, 570, Pin- Vs. P.H. Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018. & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5685/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit Cir 1(1)(1), Brics Gilt Finance Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Now Known As M/S Mumbai, Brics Gilt Finance Pvt. बिधम/ Pin- Ltd. Vs. 1St Floor, Sadhna House, 570, P.H. Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8885B अपीऱाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. T. Kepgen, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01/03/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 02/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Sandeep Gosain:

…. v. DCIT for A.Y 1998- 99 in ITA No. 4613/Mum/2005 dated 1205.2010 (TM) 6) Delta Air Lines Inc. v. ITO [153 Ui 506 (Mum)] 7) S. Ranjith Reddy v. DCIT [161 TTJ 316, 345 (Hyd)] 8) Amit Engineers v. ACIT [156 lTD 556 (Chd)] 9) Aipita Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [21 SOT 302 (Mum)] 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR appearing on behalf of revenue relied upon the orders of AO passed u/s 143 (3) section 147 of the I.T. Act and It was argued that the AO had reasons to believe that the income in the case of assessee had escaped assessment, therefore, the AO was well within his rights to reopen the assessment. 8. We have heard…

DCIT (It) 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. B4U International Holdings Ltd

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

…isions:- (i) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (Bombay High Court)[2012] 349 ITR 76 (Born) (ii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 68 DTR 90(Bom) (High Court) (iii) Bapalal & Co. v/s. Jt. CIT - (2007) 289 ITR 37 (Mad.) (iv) M/s. Aipita Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (21 SOT 302) (v) HV Transmissions Ltd. v. ITO I.T.A. No.2476/Mum/2010 (vi) Balakrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Born.) (vii) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV Vs. Feather Foam Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 296 ITR 342 (Delhi) (viii) Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT 295 'TR 333 (Bom.) In view of the foregoing, the appellant prays that as it…