Anusandhan Investment Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-\nobjection of the assessee are dismissed

…n(SC) that information obtained during assessment proceedings\nof a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings\ninitiated u/s.147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs.\nM.R.. Singh, DCIT, 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued\nu/s.148 based on assessment of subsequent assessment year\nis valid even if the appeal is pending for such assessment.\n\n13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond\nWoollen Mills Ltd. VS. ITO 236 ITR 34, 35 (SC) has held that for\ndetermining whether initiation of reassessment proceedings\nwas valid, it has o…

DIAGOLD DESIGNS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee, are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Diagold Designs Limited, Cc2070, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-12(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Aabcd3716 ..... Respondent

…409 (SC) that information obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings-initiated u/s. 147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R. Singh, DCIT, 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s.148 based on assessment of subsequent assessment year is valid even if the appeal is pending for such assessment. 7. In this instant case, reopening was based on information received from the office of DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai. Information was specific in nature that assessee entered into the transactions of bogus purcha…

MOHD. ISTEYAQUE ANWAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(CC) 1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalmohd. Ishteyaque Anwar, Plot No. 141, Swapnapurti Chs Hingane Mala, Hadapsar, Pune-411028 Pan: Aghpa8626K ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cen. Cir. 1(3) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

…409 (SC) that information obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings initiated u/s. 147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R. Singh, DCIT, 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s. 148 based on assessment of subsequent assessment year is valid even if the people is pending for such assessment. 6.20 In view of the above binding judicial precedents, I am of the considered view that the AO had valid reasons to initiate the reassessment proceedings, which were duly recorded and communicated to th…

ITO -8(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. SYMMETREE REALTY VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…d, the appellant has disputed the reopening of the case. It is noted that this case was earlier completed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO reopened the proceedings on the basis of his finding in A.Y 2010-11. In the case of M/s Anusandhan Investments Ltd 287 ITR 482 (Bom) it is held that assessment of subsequent year can be a basis for reopening the proceedings. Further here cannot be change of opinion in this case as and there was no earlier scrutiny in this case. Looking into the entirety of the facts of the case, these grounds are dismissed.” 17. Bare perusal of the reasons recorded as extracted in the p…

ITO-8(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. SYMMETREE REALTY VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…d, the appellant has disputed the reopening of the case. It is noted that this case was earlier completed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO reopened the proceedings on the basis of his finding in A.Y 2010-11. In the case of M/s Anusandhan Investments Ltd 287 ITR 482 (Bom) it is held that assessment of subsequent year can be a basis for reopening the proceedings. Further here cannot be change of opinion in this case as and there was no earlier scrutiny in this case. Looking into the entirety of the facts of the case, these grounds are dismissed.” 17. Bare perusal of the reasons recorded as extracted in the p…

JSK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

…(SC) that an information obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings initiated u/s.147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R .. Singh, DCIT, 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s.148 based on assessment of subsequent assessment year is valid even if the appeal is pending for such assessment. 8.16 Further, it is the duty of the assessee to disclose full and true materials to the A.O. but for which the A.O. could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Co…

SIKKIM FERRO ALLOYS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…(SC) that an information obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings initiated u/s.147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R .. Singh, DCIT, 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s.148 based on assessment of subsequent assessment year is valid even if the appeal is pending for such assessment. 8.9 Further, it is the duty of the assessee to disclose full and true materials to the A.O. but for which the A.O. could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. SIKKIM FERRO ALLOYS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…(SC) that an information obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings initiated u/s.147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R .. Singh, DCIT, 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s.148 based on assessment of subsequent assessment year is valid even if the appeal is pending for such assessment. 8.9 Further, it is the duty of the assessee to disclose full and true materials to the A.O. but for which the A.O. could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou…

SIKKIM FERRO ALLOYS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6 (OLD), MUMBAI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…(SC) that an information obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings initiated u/s.147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R .. Singh, DCIT, 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s.148 based on assessment of subsequent assessment year is valid even if the appeal is pending for such assessment. 8.9 Further, it is the duty of the assessee to disclose full and true materials to the A.O. but for which the A.O. could initiate the reassessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMAZON METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-8(4) Vs. M/s Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 PAN/GIR No.AAHCA6693B (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 74/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.903/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Acro Exports Trade Vs. DCIT, CC-8(4) Room No. 658, 6th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 0…

DCIE CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.PALI FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-8(4) Vs. M/s Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6th Floor 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 PAN/GIR No.AAFCP0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-8(4) 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 0…

DCIT CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ACRO EXPORTS TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-8(4) Vs. M/s Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 PAN/GIR No.AAHCA6693B (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 74/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.903/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Acro Exports Trade Vs. DCIT, CC-8(4) Room No. 658, 6th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 0…

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

…rima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Claggett Brachi 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…

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Claggett Brachi 41 & 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…

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Claggett Brachi 41 & 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…

ASST CIT 19(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHESH BROTHERS, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…Woolen Mills Ltd. v/s ITO, 236 ITR 34 (SC); ii) ACIT v/s Rajesh Jhavari Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500; iii) Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. v/s CIT, 78 ITR 466; iv) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v/s DCIT, 52 DTR 353; and v) Piaggio Vehicles v/s DCIT, 290 ITR 377. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. It 7 M/s. Ashesh Brothers is evident from the material on record as well as the reasons recorded for re–opening the assessment that during the search and seizure operation conducted in case of Bhawarlal Jain and h…

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

…believe that income has escaped assessment. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court In Claggett Brachi Company Ltd. vs CIT 177 ITR 409 (Supreme 42 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. 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…

DCIT 15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. A.J. BUILDCON P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. CIT 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/s. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, LBS Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAGCA6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR) Assessee by: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear…

VINOD K.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…mation obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings initiated u/s.147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R .. Singh, DCIT, Shri Vinod K. Shah 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s.148 based on assessment of subsequent assessment year is valid even if the appeal is pending for such assessment. Further, in the case of Piaggio Vehicles P. Ltd. YS. DCIT 290 ITR 377 (Bom), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that in a case of reopening after 4 years subsequent to scrutiny assessments, contra…