Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel

ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashokkumar Murajmal Raimalani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3569/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer -24(1)(2), Room No.605, Piramal Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Lane,Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Ashokkumar Murajmal Raimalani, 2Nd Floor, 108, Zaveri Bazar, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058. Pan: Aaapr-8617-A .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam –Cit Dr ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Shah सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

…ance on the following decisions to contend that notice u/s. 148 issued prior to seeking approval u/s. 151 of the Act from Competent Authority is invalid: (i) River Valley Madow & Township Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 284 Taxman 536 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Ramesh D. Patel, 362 ITR 492 (Guj). (iii) Tehmul Sethna vs. DCIT in ITA NO.1743/Ahd/2019, A.Y. 2010-11 Decided on 07/12/2022. 4.1 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) has not only held reopening to be invalid on the ground of notice without authorization, the CIT(A) has also found inconsistency in the reasons recorded for reopening. He su…

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

…be decided by us. We have gone through the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd. (supra) and noted that various High Courts have taken a contrary view on this issue, as under: M/s. Tata International Ltd  CIT vs. Ramesh D Patel [362 ITR 4931 (Guj)  Prashant Chandra vs. CIT81 taxmann.com 1o6 (Allahabad)  Elite Pharmaceuticals vs. ITO [242 Taxman 3451 (Cal) 16. We also noted that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ramesh D Patel (supra), while dealing with a similar issue, we noted that at page 496 under last but one paragraph held as under: "9. Thus, section 124 of the Act perta…

ACIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Tata International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

…be decided by us. We have gone through the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd. (supra) and noted that various High Courts have taken a contrary view on this issue, as under: M/s. Tata International Ltd  CIT vs. Ramesh D Patel [362 ITR 4931 (Guj)  Prashant Chandra vs. CIT81 taxmann.com 1o6 (Allahabad)  Elite Pharmaceuticals vs. ITO [242 Taxman 3451 (Cal) 16. We also noted that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ramesh D Patel (supra), while dealing with a similar issue, we noted that at page 496 under last but one paragraph held as under: "9. Thus, section 124 of the Act perta…

Emerson Network Power (India) P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 1, Thane

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

…e decided by us. We have gone through the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd. (supra) and noted that various High Courts have taken a contrary view on this issue, as under: M/s. Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd.,  CIT vs. Ramesh D Patel [362 ITR 4931 (Guj)  Prashant Chandra vs. CIT81 taxmann.com 1o6 (Allahabad)  Elite Pharmaceuticals vs. ITO [242 Taxman 3451 (Cal) 16. We also noted that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ramesh D Patel (supra), while dealing with a similar issue, we noted that at page 496 under last but one paragraph held as under: "9. Thus, section 124 of the Act perta…

Emerson Network Power (India) P. Ltd, Thane vs. JCIT RG 1, Thane

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

…e decided by us. We have gone through the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Mega Corporation Ltd. (supra) and noted that various High Courts have taken a contrary view on this issue, as under: M/s. Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd.,  CIT vs. Ramesh D Patel [362 ITR 4931 (Guj)  Prashant Chandra vs. CIT81 taxmann.com 1o6 (Allahabad)  Elite Pharmaceuticals vs. ITO [242 Taxman 3451 (Cal) 16. We also noted that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ramesh D Patel (supra), while dealing with a similar issue, we noted that at page 496 under last but one paragraph held as under: "9. Thus, section 124 of the Act perta…

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

…s 132A, the Assessing Officer shall issue a notice upon such person. The expression clearly relates to a person in respect of whom search u/s 132 has been initiated or as section 153A after 31st day of March 2003. The ratio laid down in Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492(Guj.) supports our view. In that event the Assessing Officer shall:- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal T…

Vashdev G Adnani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vashdev G Adnani, Acit 19(1) G-4, Sea Crest, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. Seven Bunglows Gardens, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 061. Pan Abapa7414M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year : 2005-06 Vashdev G Adnani, ACIT 19(1) G-4, Sea Crest, 2nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. Seven Bunglows Gardens, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 061. PAN ABAPA7414M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Prakash Pandit Respondent By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing :13.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 31.01.2014, pa…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…within a time stipulated therein. Section 124 is relevant only to territorial jurisdiction and not where inherent jurisdiction is challenged. To support t his contention he relied on the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh D. Patel (362 ITR 492) wherein Court held that "the provisions of Section 124 clearly concern the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and have no relevance to inherent jurisdiction for passing an Assessment Order." Further, the Delhi High Court has its own earlier decisions, also drawn a distinction between "territorial jurisdiction" and "inherent jur…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…within a time stipulated therein. Section 124 is relevant only to territorial jurisdiction and not where inherent jurisdiction is challenged. To support t his contention he relied on the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh D. Patel (362 ITR 492) wherein Court held that "the provisions of Section 124 clearly concern the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and have no relevance to inherent jurisdiction for passing an Assessment Order." Further, the Delhi High Court has its own earlier decisions, also drawn a distinction between "territorial jurisdiction" and "inherent jur…