CIT v. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia

MRS NAYANA D. ATEKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

…of notice us 143(2) of the Act, may kindly be dismissed and the appeal be decided on the merits of the case.” P a g e | 8 4.6 We also rely on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CWT vs. HUF of Late Shri J.M. Scindia reported in (2008) 300 ITR 193 (Bom). Based on the discussion and the legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Geno (supra) and decision relied hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the re-assessment order passed for the year under consideration is bad in law and void for…

MUKAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukund Limited V. Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor M.K. Road 226 Nariman Point New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department By : Shri Ajay K. Ojha

…u/s. 143(2) was not issued to the assessee and therefore re-assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CWT v. HUF of H.H. Late Shri J. M. Scindia [300 ITR 193 (Bom)] the Ld.CIT(A) did not deal with this objection. However, he mentioned that Assessing Officer issued and served notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on the assessee without calling for the report from Assessing Officer. On a query to the Ld. DR by me as to whether notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee it is submitted that the As…

VIDYAVIHAR CONTAINERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3Rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacn0291R Appellant Respondent

…is bad in law and liable to be quashed as null and void as initio. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) CIT vs. Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) CWT vs. HUF of late Shri J.M. Scindia (2008) 300 ITR 193 (iii) Arunlal vs. ACIT (2010) 124 ITD 85 (Agra) (TM) (iv) Abacus Distribution Systems (I) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2014) 29 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) 4.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue supported the finding of the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order on this issue. The learned D.R. placed reliance on the following decisions in support of Revenue’s…

ING BEEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJ I B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 3, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.5276/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007) I.T.A. No.7119/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2007-2008) I.T.A. No.7120/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) I.T.A. No.7121/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) ING Bewaar Maatschappiji B.V. फनाभ/ Addl. Director of Income as Trustee of ING Emerging Tax (International Vs. Markets Equity Funds, Taxation)-3, C/o. SRBC & Associates LLP, Scindi House, Ballard Estate, 14th Floor, The Ruby, N.M. Marg, Mumbai-400038. 29, Senapati Bapat Mar…

KARANRAJ M JAIN,RAIGAD vs. ITO WD 3, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…1.12.2009, wherein, under the Wealth Tax provisions, the High Court held that the issue of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) is essential and for the proposition, the High Court relied on its own judgment in the case of CIT vs. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia (2008) 300 ITR 193 (Bom.). Further also, Ld Counsel relied on another judgment in the case of CIT vs. Mr. Salman Khan in Income Tax Appeal No. 508 of 2010, dated 6.6.2011, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has relied on its own judgment in the case of Mr. Salman Khan in IT Appeal (L) No.2363 of 2009 (supra) and held that the failure of the Assessing Officer in issuing…

KARANRAJ M JAIN,RAIGAD vs. ITO WD 3, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…1.12.2009, wherein, under the Wealth Tax provisions, the High Court held that the issue of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) is essential and for the proposition, the High Court relied on its own judgment in the case of CIT vs. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia (2008) 300 ITR 193 (Bom.). Further also, Ld Counsel relied on another judgment in the case of CIT vs. Mr. Salman Khan in Income Tax Appeal No. 508 of 2010, dated 6.6.2011, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has relied on its own judgment in the case of Mr. Salman Khan in IT Appeal (L) No.2363 of 2009 (supra) and held that the failure of the Assessing Officer in issuing…

DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HARDCASTLE PETROFER P.LT, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

…additional ground of C.O. is purely question of law and does not require any new fact to be brought on record, thus, we admit the additional ground of C.O. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia [300 ITR 193 (Bom)] held that while invoking the power u/s 17( wealth tax Act), the AO is bound by the mandate of the proviso to section 16(2) (wealth tax Act) and on failure the order of reassessment will be without jurisdiction and consequently the order of reassessment will have to be set aside. Further, in case of ACIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [32 ta…

GOLDSTAR METALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.4790/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम/ M/S. Goldstar Metals Ltd., The Ito, 31,Anandi Chs Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nadiawala Colony No. 2 Mumbai-400 020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 0330M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri K.K. Lalkaka ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Asghar Zain सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :08.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :24.02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-19, Mumbai Dated 01.05.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Dismissed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Upholding The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S. 148 Of The Act & Also The Addition Made Towards Unproved Share Capital By Order Dated 11.2.2015. This Order Was Later Recalled By The Tribunal For Deciding The Limited Issue Of Validity Of Assessment Order With Regard To The 2 Non Issue & Service Of Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act. Thus The Limited Issue To Be Decided Is As To Whether The Assessment Is Bad In Law In The Absence Of Service Of Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act. In The Course Of Hearing, The Bench Directed The Departmental Representative To Seek Comments & Report From Assessing Officer With Regard To Service Of Proof Of Notice.

…his case and has complied with all the requirements of the questionnaire issued by the A.O.? 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice a judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. HUF of H.H.Late J.M.Scindia (2008) 300 ITR 193 (Bom.). Following the said judgment, the appeal being ITXA (L) No.3475 of 2008 was 5 disposed of wherein the same question of law was involved, which is question No.1 herein this appeal.. 3. So far as first question involved in the present appeal is concerned, the same is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment of this Court. 4. So far as second q…

ITO (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. MEGA FRIGHT MOVERS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…e treated a separate contract for every single journey, the appellant have relied upon the decision given in the case of Jurisdictional ITAT Mumbai in City Transport Corporation versus ITO 13 SOT 479 and again in case of ITO(TDS) versus Bhoruka Roadlines Ltd. 300 ITR 193 Mum. Then the appellant has also relied upon CBDT Circular No. 715 and stated that as 5 M/s Mega Freight Movers Ltd. ITA Nos. 3128 to 3131/Mum/2014 per that circular each GR to be treated as a separate contract for TDS. 4.5 After going through the same and finding that A 0 has mentioned and considered amount of expenses debited in P&L A/c' for A…

PRIYA SANDEEP THORAT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 27(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.4121/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Priya Sandeep Thorat, C/O Vs. Acit-27(1)(Old Dcit- Jayesh Sanghrajka & Co, 22(1), Vashi Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Unit Navi Mumbai. No.405, Hind Rajsthan Centre, D.S.Phalke Road, Dadar(E), Mumbai-400014 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Ahjpm 5246 J (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Harshvardhana Datar यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.S.Bist सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 12-6-2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. 2. In This Appeal The Assessee Is Aggrieved That The Assessment Framed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Without Issue Of Notice U/S.143(2) Is Not Sustainable In Law. 3. We Have Considered Rival Contentions & Carefully Gone Through The Orders Of The Authorities Below. In Para 2.1 & 2.2 Of The Assessment Order, The Ao Observed As Under :-

…1 The CIT v Mr. Salman Khan [ITA No.508 of 2010 dated 06/06/2011-BOM HC] 2 ITO v. The Shirt Company [ITA No.3450/Mum/2009 dated 30/06/2010] 3 The CIT v Mr. Salman Khan [ITA No.2362 of 2009 dated 01/12/2009-BOM HC] 4 CWT v. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia 300 ITR 193 (Bom) 5 ITO v. R.K. Gupta 308 ITR (AT) 49 (Del) 6 CIT v. Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All) 7 Kuber Tabocco Products Pvt. Ltd. v Dy. CIT 310 ITR 300 (AT) (SB) (Del) 8 ITO v. Smt. Kuldip Kaur (2011) 136 TTJ (Chd) (UO) 53 9 H. Gouthamchand v. Addl. CIT (2010) 131 TTJ (Bang) 204 10 Chandra R. Gandhi v. ITO 120 TTJ 786 (Mum) 5. On the other hand…