ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

Navnidhi Steel and Engg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

…tune of Rs. 19,31,040/-. The original return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, and thus no opinion was formed and hence there is no change of opinion. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri, (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 23-05-2007 has held as under : “11. It is to be noted that substantial changes have been made to section 143(1) with effect from June 1, 1999. Up to March 31, 1989, after a return of income was filed the Assessing Officer could make an assessment under section 143(1) without requiring the pre…

Arvind Balkrishna Goregonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

…iled investigation or legal analysis. In other words, at the point of time of initiating the reassessment proceedings, existence, and not adequacy of reasons, is material. This view is supported by the decision in case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), CARTIER SHIPPING CO. LTD. 40 DTR 459 (Mumbai Trib), Praful Chunilal Patel 148 CTR (Guj.). The sufficiency of reasons cannot be looked into by courts and there must be recording of prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woolen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), K R Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). I…

Haresh K. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4975/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Haresh K. Sanghvi Ito-17(1)(5), Prop. M/S. Mahavir Metal Syndicate Room No. 117, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 35/37, Bapu Khote Lane, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Vs. Gulal Wadi, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajvps 5483 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Praful L. Vora ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

…terial information about escapement of income and the same is not required to be proved to the hilt. In 8 Haresh K. Sanghvi vs. ITO this regard, I refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500:- "Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to lax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the AO has cause or justification to know or suppose (hat inco…

Sangeeta Ghanshyam Patel, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4583, 4584 & 4585/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sangeeta Ghanshyam Patel Acit-32(3), बनाम/ C-11, 1St Floor, Bkc, 1211 C, National Park View, Paheja Estate, Borivali, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 066 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Agtpp 4539 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Darshan Gandhi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since The Issues Are Common, These Appeals Were Heard Together & They Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

…sed on some tangible and material information about escapement of income and the same is not required to be proved to the guilt. In this regard, I refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500:- "Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to lax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the AO has cause or justification to know or suppose (hat inco…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Tubes India, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee and the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2230 To 2232/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Tubes India The Asst. Cit, Circle 19(3), बनाम/ 11/15, 2Nd Pathan Street, Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Kumbharwada 5Th Lane, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaet 4281 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3145 To 3147/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) The Asst. Cit, Circle 19(3), Tubes India बनाम/ Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, 11/15, 2Nd Pathan Street, Kumbharwada 5Th Lane, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Chamaria : Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 05.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Arising Out Of The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. The Common Grounds Of Appeal In Assessee’S Case Read As Under:

…sed on some tangible and material information about escapement of income and the same is not required to be proved to the guilt. In this regard, I refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500:- "Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to lax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the AO has cause or justification to know or suppose (hat inco…

Income Tax Officer-10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Idm Agro Bio Tech Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-10(1)(2), Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Revenue) : (Assessee) ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No. 260/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5805/Mum/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Ito-10(1)(2), A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri N. Hemalatha Revenue By Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement

…appellant in such cases, cannot assail the re-opening on the ground that the facts were already placed on record and the AO ought to have considered the facts. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 510) observed that the word "reason", in the "reason to believe" will mean cause or justification. If the AO has cause or justification to know or suppose that income-had escaped assessment, it can be said to have "reason to believe" that the income had escaped assessment, It is further observed by the Honorable Court that the word 'expression1 canno…

Hasmukh I Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…ferred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Joshi & Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale Vs. ITO & Anr.324 ITR 154 (Bom). He submitted that this decision was rendered after considering the decision of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500 (SC). He further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom.). 12. On merits, the ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that this is not a case of any whistle blower, but a case where certain data were stolen and on the basis of th…

Chintan H Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…ferred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Joshi & Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale Vs. ITO & Anr.324 ITR 154 (Bom). He submitted that this decision was rendered after considering the decision of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500 (SC). He further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom.). 12. On merits, the ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that this is not a case of any whistle blower, but a case where certain data were stolen and on the basis of th…

Hasmukh I Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…ferred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Joshi & Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale Vs. ITO & Anr.324 ITR 154 (Bom). He submitted that this decision was rendered after considering the decision of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500 (SC). He further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom.). 12. On merits, the ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that this is not a case of any whistle blower, but a case where certain data were stolen and on the basis of th…

Janak Pranlal Ladhani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-11(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shrir. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5102/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

…nlalLadhani Hiranandani which form part of the Appraisal Report of the Hiranandani Group also constitutes „incriminating evidence /material‟ and as per the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vrs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC) wherein it was held as under:- "The word 'reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean…