251 ITR 416. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. K.J. Rao (268 ITR 203)

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

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

…266 ITR 566) (Bom); > Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (267 ITR 161) (Bom). f) Further, attention is invited to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, being jurisdictional High Court in our case, in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. K. J. Rao and Another (268 ITR 203) (Bom), wherein the assessee had erroneously claimed depreciation at the rate of 40% instead of 20% and the AO had even allowed the same at the time of the finalization of the original assessment. However, the AO re-opened the assessment based on the same ground. Accordingly, upon writ to the High Court, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that th…

BAJAJ PARIVAHAN PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2609/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 2Section 250

…on is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action under section 147 could be taken." 13. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.), ICICI Bank Ltd. vs DCIT (2004) 268 ITR 203 (Bom.). 5 I.T.A. No. 2609/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bajaj Parivahan Private Limited. 14. I also find that no fresh tangible material has come into the possession of the AO, which could trigger re-opening in this case. The transaction with M/s. Rexnox Trexim Pvt. Ltd. was fully disclosed and it is not fresh material. All the other sentenc…

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 283/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ent proceedings, then it is not open for the Assessing Officer to change his view. For this proposition, the ld. AR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India, 320 ITR 561 (SC) , ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 268 ITR 203, CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd., 258 ITR 126 (Gau), Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, 114 ITR 404 (AP), CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd., 105 ITR 212 (SC) and several other legal pronouncements. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the present case is not of change of opinion and was not based only on audit report and there was…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), THANE vs. OSTWAL DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4397/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarito, Ward-2(5), M/S Ostwal Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 16, 6Th Floor, 201/1A, Ostwal Park, 2Nd Vs. Ashar It Park, Wagle Indl. Floor, Jesal Park, Bhayander Estate, Road No. 16Z, (W), 401105. Thane (W), 400604. Pan: Aaaco4853A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashish Pophare (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Shah (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Pophare (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Shah (AR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

…the return of income so filed, accordingly, in terms of the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of 1. IPCA Laboratories Ltd., vs. Gajanand Meena, DCIT & Others (No.2) reported in 251 ITR 416. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., vs. K.J. Rao and another reported in 268 ITR 203, 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514, no reopening after expiry of four 5 ITA No. 4397 Mum 2017-M/s Ostwal Diamond Pvt. Ltd. years is valid unless department shows that there is failure on the part of…

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1723/PUN/14, ITA No.11/PUN/2015 & ITA No.1608/PUN/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2008-09 Ayoki Fabricon Private Limited, DCIT, Circle-1(1), Office No.137 & 139, Vs. Pune Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 PAN : AABCA5780F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Nikhil Pathak Respondent by Shri Pankaj Garg Date of hearing 19-11-2018 Date of pronouncement 20-11-2018 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These three a…

AYOKI FABRICON PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1723/PUN/14, ITA No.11/PUN/2015 & ITA No.1608/PUN/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2008-09 Ayoki Fabricon Private Limited, DCIT, Circle-1(1), Office No.137 & 139, Vs. Pune Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 PAN : AABCA5780F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Nikhil Pathak Respondent by Shri Pankaj Garg Date of hearing 19-11-2018 Date of pronouncement 20-11-2018 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These three a…

AYOKI FABRICON PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1723/PUN/14, ITA No.11/PUN/2015 & ITA No.1608/PUN/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2008-09 Ayoki Fabricon Private Limited, DCIT, Circle-1(1), Office No.137 & 139, Vs. Pune Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 PAN : AABCA5780F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Nikhil Pathak Respondent by Shri Pankaj Garg Date of hearing 19-11-2018 Date of pronouncement 20-11-2018 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These three a…

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…polo Hospital Enterprises -vs. -ACIT (2006) 287 ITR 25 (Mad) - Garden Silk Mills Pvt Ltd, -vs.- DCIT(1999) 237 ITR 663.675 (Gui) - Ballarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Ltd. (1975) 101 ITR 55 (Cal) 3.22] In the case of ICICI Bank Ltd, -vs.- DCIT & Ors. (2004) 268 ITR 203 (Bom) wherein it was held that concluded assessments can be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years only if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. 3.23] Further, in the case of Jashan Textile Mills (P) Ltd, -v…

ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. R.G.MANUDHANE (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2610/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Arati Vissanji, AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of such averment, jurisdiction will fail as was decided in Agilsys. IT Services India P. Ltd. V. ITO (2013) 27 ITR (Trib) 244 / (Mumbai) following Asst. CIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. (2012)348 / ITR 299(SC), ICICI Bank Ltd. V. K.J Rao(2004) 268 ITR 203 (Bom), CIT v. Viniyas Finance and Investment P. Ltd. (2013)357 8 ITR 646 (Del) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. V.R.B. Walkar, Asst. CIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)." Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal against the quashing of the re- assessment. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the…

ASST CIRT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. RAJRANI S. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3874/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am The Assistant Commissioner Rajrani S Gupta Of Income Tax-32(3), 11-C, Lancelot Chsl, Sv Room No. 108, 1St Floor, Bldg. Road, Borivali(W), No. C-11, Pratyakshakar Mumbai-400 092 Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadpg1333P

For Appellant: S. L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM The Assistant Commissioner Rajrani S Gupta of Income Tax-32(3), 11-C, Lancelot Chsl, SV Room No. 108, 1st Floor, Bldg. Road, Borivali(W), No. C-11, Pratyakshakar Mumbai-400 092 Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AADPG1333P Revenue by : M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Assessee by : S. L. Jain, AR Date of hearing: 09-01-2018 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2018 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commiss…

DCIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. THE TATA FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…) (Bom.) v) Kimplas Trenton Fittings V. ACIT (340 ITR 299) (Bom.) vi) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) vii) IPCA Laboratories Ltd v DCIT (251 ITR 416) (Bom.) viii) Bhor Industries Limited v ACIT (267 ITR 161)(Bom) ix) ICICI Bank Limited v DCIT (268 ITR 203)(Bom.) x) CIT v Daimler Chrysler India (P.) Ltd. (33 taxmann. com 419)(Bom) xi) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCII (346 ITR 355)(Bom.) 7 Tata Finance Ltd. (now merged with Tata Motors Ltd) ITA No.2961 & 2962/Mum/2014, A.Ys.2003-04 & 2005-06 xii) Bhavesh Developers v AO (188 Taxman 123)(Bom.) xiii) Own case – Bombay High Court order dated 16.11.2011 A…

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA MOTORS LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS TATA ENGG & LOCOMOTIVE CO.LTD), MUMBAI

In the result the ground of appeal raised in Cross objections is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 3600/MUM/2011[20001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…(Bom). iii. Kimpas Trenton Fittings v. ACIT (340 ITR 299) (Bom). iv. Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407)(Bom). v. IPCA Laboratories Ltd vs. DCIT (251 ITR 4160(Bom.). vi. Bhor Industries Limited v ACIT (267 ITR 161) (Bom). vii. ICICI Bank Limited v DCIT (268 ITR 203) (Bom.) viii. NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 355) (Bom). ix. Bhavesh Developers v. AO (188 Taxman 123)(Bom.) x. Tata International Ltd. v DCIT (22 taxmann.com 18) (ITAT Mumbai). xi. Own case – Bombay High Court order dated 16.11.2011 for AY 1992-93 (Appeal No. 6036 of 2010). xii. Own case – ITAT order dated 23.08.2006 for AY 1992-93 (ITA N…

AISHWARYA RAI BACHCHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3873/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2004-05