Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

382 ITR 333High Court2016#1272 most cited

What is Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Reassessment orders under Section 147/148 are without jurisdiction and invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment through a speaking order, as mandated by the GKN Driveshafts procedure.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bayer Material Science v. DCIT · 382 ITR 333 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · reassessment proceedings · GKN Driveshafts · objections to reopening · speaking order · without jurisdiction · procedural compliance · notice under Section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 69ASection 133(6)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 153(2)live linkreopening of assessmentsection 254notice under section 148reason to believespeaking orderescapement of incomedraft assessment orderreassessment proceedingscross objectioncommissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

The ACIT 4(1), Indore vs. M/S Suyash Exim P Ltd, Indore

Accordingly, departmental grounds with regard to addition of Rs.1,81,847/- are dismissed

ITA 356/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147

…ce is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order." 7. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others (2016) 382 ITR 333 held: “Reassessment Notice -Transfer Pricing-Draft assessment order Draft assessment order passed without disposing of objections filed 7 Suyash Exim ITA 356 of 2020 and CO 19 of 2021 by assessee to reasons for reopening assessment- Unsustainable - Income Tax Act, 1961, section 147.” 8. We find that during the year under consideration, the ass…

Shri Gopal Yadev Selva Kumar, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr.Gopal Yadav Selva Kumar, V. The Income Tax Officer, 65, Vellore Main Road, Ward-2, 1St Street, Arcot, Vellore-632 503. Vellore. [Pan: Btsps 5973 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Salai Varun Isai Azhagan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2022

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…reassessment is arbitrary and much against the guide lines/findings give by the Apex Court in the case of G K N Drive Shafts India Ltd. Vs. ITO (2013) 259 ITR 19. (ii) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science P Ltd. Vs. DCIT,(2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom) (HC) held that non- disposal of objections and providing the assessee with the recorded reason towards end of the limitation period and passing a reassessment order without dealing with results is gross harassment to the assessee which the PR.CIT should take note and take remedial action. In Asian Paints Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of I…

Kishore H Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7371/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ry objections and he cannot dispose off the objections while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Jo…

Kishore H Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7370/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ry objections and he cannot dispose off the objections while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Jo…

Jasmin K Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7368/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ry objections and he cannot dispose off the objections while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Jo…

Jasmin K Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7367/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ry objections and he cannot dispose off the objections while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Jo…

Jiten K Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7366/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ry objections and he cannot dispose off the objections while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Jo…

M/S. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…rejection of assessee's objections to reopening of assessment, order so passed being invalid, deserved to be set aside” 1.5 In some other cases i.e. Jayanti Natarajan (Ms.) vs. ACIT (2018) 401 ITR 215 (Mad.) & Mayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) 6 ITA 1388/JP/2019 _ M/s Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Vs DCIT the Hon`ble Courts observed that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is of binding nature and is a source of law unto itself is binding on all authorities. In view of this legal position, the AO could not have violated the directions given by the Supreme Court. In view of…

Vikas Ganpat Mane, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward(3)(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 7493/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसुं. 7491/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2007-08) आअसुं. 7492/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2008-09) आअसुं. 7493/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2009-10) Vikas Ganpat Mane, D-6,303, Gaondevi Nagar, Shankar Pawse Road, Kalyan (East) 421 306 Pan:Akkpm4583C ...... अऩीराथी /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…a) Ltd.(supra). Failure to follow procedure renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra – vires. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT reported as 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) and in the case of KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT in Income Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2014 decided on 03/10/2016. 8. In the present case, I find that the assessee after receipt of notice under section 148 has duly complied with the directions and furnished return of income in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the assessee asked the…

Vikas Ganpat Mane, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward (3)(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 7492/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसुं. 7491/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2007-08) आअसुं. 7492/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2008-09) आअसुं. 7493/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2009-10) Vikas Ganpat Mane, D-6,303, Gaondevi Nagar, Shankar Pawse Road, Kalyan (East) 421 306 Pan:Akkpm4583C ...... अऩीराथी /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…a) Ltd.(supra). Failure to follow procedure renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra – vires. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT reported as 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) and in the case of KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT in Income Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2014 decided on 03/10/2016. 8. In the present case, I find that the assessee after receipt of notice under section 148 has duly complied with the directions and furnished return of income in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the assessee asked the…

Vikas Ganpat Mane, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward (3)(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 7491/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसुं. 7491/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2007-08) आअसुं. 7492/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2008-09) आअसुं. 7493/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2009-10) Vikas Ganpat Mane, D-6,303, Gaondevi Nagar, Shankar Pawse Road, Kalyan (East) 421 306 Pan:Akkpm4583C ...... अऩीराथी /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…a) Ltd.(supra). Failure to follow procedure renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra – vires. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT reported as 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) and in the case of KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT in Income Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2014 decided on 03/10/2016. 8. In the present case, I find that the assessee after receipt of notice under section 148 has duly complied with the directions and furnished return of income in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the assessee asked the…

Shri Manoj Kanhaiyalal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 5993/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Manoj Kanhaiyalal Agarwal बिधम/ Acit, Circle-17(2) 100-104, D. G. Chambers, Room No.123A, Aayakar Vs. 2Nd Floor, Nanik Motwani Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa3100A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Shivaram (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Reopening Is Bad In Law 1. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Notice U/S.148 Dtd.31/03/2016 Was Issued On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, Thus There Was No Independent Application Of Mind By The A.O. It Is Simply Based On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Some

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram (AR)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…lso argued that the objection raised by assessee was not disposed of by AO, therefore, the reopening is not justifiable in view of the decision in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 81 (Bom), Bayer Materials Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 382 ITR 333 (Bom) & KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA. No.224 of 2014 dated 03.10.2016. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. The copy of assessment order dated 23.12.2016 speaks about the reopening of the case of the assessee u/s 147/148 of the Act on receipt of the information received from t…

ACIT-22(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Venus Manufacturing Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1977/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Choudhary
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.384 & 385/Chd./2008 (Assessment Year : 1999–2000 & 2000–01) State Bank of Patiala Head Office, The Mall ……………. Appellant Patiala 147001 PAN – AACCS0143D v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Patiala Circle, Patiala Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh Revenue by : Shri Nikhil Choudhary Date of Hearing – 26.10.2020 Date of Order – 09.11.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. Captioned appeals by the assessee arise out of two separate orders passed by the…

Income Tax 11(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Sonu Synthetic Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5291/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/M/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5291/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/s. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 PAN: AADCS5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.42/M/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.5291/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/s. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6,…

Aero Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata

ITA 2484/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…law. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High . He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High . He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) Material Science P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) Material Science P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.), for the proposition that the assessment under such circumstances would be bad in law. He the proposition that the assessment under such circumstances would be bad in law. He the proposition that the assessment under such…

M/S. Cmc Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4528/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 10ASection 147Section 234DSection 35Section 80H

…ing case laws :-  Fomentro Resorts & Hotels Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 63 of 2007)  DCIT Vs. M/s. Firstsource Solutions Ltd. (ITA No. 3985/Mum/2016 and others dated 22.5.2019)  Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (296 ITR 90)  Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (66 Taxmann.com 335)  KSS Petron Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 224 of 2014) 5. Brief facts of the case on the assessee’s challenge to the reopening is that the challenge was noted by learned CIT(A). He agreed with the assessee that the Assessing Officer has failed to pass a speaking order on objection raised by the assessee to the reopening. However, learn…

Shree Shree Mohanananda Samaj Seva Samity, Kolkata vs. ITO(Exemption)-Ward 1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…ith the objections. The disposal of the objections in the assessment order is not sufficient compliance with the procedure. The failure to follow the procedure renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra vires (Bayer Material Science 382 ITR 333 (Bom) & KSS Petron (Bom) followed).” 11. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the re-opening of assessment is bad in law. Hence, we quash the assessment order on this ground. As we have quashed the re-opening itself, we do not deal with the other grounds raised by the assessee, as it would be an academic exercise. 12. In the result, the…

Thuse Elektronics Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

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

ITA 563/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…d the relevant material on record, it is found as an admitted position that the assessee was not supplied the reasons which led to the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) has quashed the initiation of reassessment in the absence of the AO supplying the reasons to the assessee despite specific request. Recently, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Formento Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT vide judgment dated 30-08-2019 in ITA No.63/2007 has also quashed the reassessment on the ground that the reas…

Dinesh Shrivallabh Rathi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune

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

ITA 975/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…d the relevant material on record, it is found as an admitted position that the assessee was not supplied the reasons which led to the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) has quashed the initiation of reassessment in the absence of the AO supplying the reasons to the assessee despite specific request. Recently, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Formento Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT vide judgment dated 30-08-2019 in ITA No.63/2007 has also quashed the reassessment on the ground that the reas…

M/S. Png Jewellery & Gems, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Pune

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

ITA 863/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…d the relevant material on record, it is found as an admitted position that the assessee was not supplied the reasons which led to the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) has quashed the initiation of reassessment in the absence of the AO supplying the reasons to the assessee despite specific request. Recently, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Formento Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT vide judgment dated 30-08-2019 in ITA No.63/2007 has also quashed the reassessment on the ground that the reas…