German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT

ITO-19(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRITI BHARAT PAREKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Ito-19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh 507, 5Th Floor, Piramal 6C Landsend Chs 29 D Chambers, Parel, Dongersey Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Malabar Hill Maharashtra – 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepp1784C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Nfac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Quashing The Reopening By The Ao With The Opinion That The Reopening Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law Without Appreciating That The Facts On Which The Reopening Was Done Are Not Available By The Ao At The Time Of Original Assessment 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Investigation, It Was Found That The Scrips In Which The Assessee Traded Is Penny Stock Used For Providing Accommodation Entry Only In Form Of Bogus Ltcg & Stcg & Shared With The Jurisdiction Ao In The Fy 2020-21. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Entered

…proceedings is reproduced as under: “6.21 Further, there are plethora of other judgments and decisions by the various courts of law on the point that mere change of opinion cannot be per se reason to reopen as under:- German Remedies Ltd vs. DCIT & Ors (2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom.) Siemens Information System Ltd vs. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (BOM) Techspan India (P) Ltd & Anr Vs. ITO (2006) 283 ITR 212 (Del) (Assessment Year 2001-2002) Karthikeya International vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 539 (All) Godrej Agrovet Ltd 323 ITR 97 (Bom) Aakash Land Developers ITA No. 7350/M/2008 & 7351/M/2008 dated 29/10/2010 6.22 Further, the p…

DCIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-14(2)(1) M/S Idea Cellular Ltd. 432, 4Th Floor, (Successor To M/S. Spice Communications Ltd.), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, East Wing, Windsor Off. Cst Mumbai 400020 Road, Kalina, Near Vidya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 098 Pan – Aagcs6070H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop With Shri M.K. Singh (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Krupa Gandhi With Vidhi Doshi (Ar)

…TR 561 (SC ), Idea Cellular Versus DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bombay High Court), OHM Stock Brokers. Ltd versus CIT (351 ITR 443) (Bombay High Court), GKN Sinter Metal Ltd versus ACIT (WP No.2639 of 2007) (Bombay High Court), German Remedies Ltd versus DCIT 285 ITR 26 (Bombay High Court), Aroni Commercials Ltd versus JCIT 362 ITR 403 (Bombay High Court) and Plus Paper food Pac Ltd versus ITO 374 ITR 485 (Bombay High Court). 9. In other alternative submission the learned AR submits that merely because there is no discussion of the issue in the assessment order under section 143(3), it does not mean that asses…

ACIT 7(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NIYANAND INRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Acit, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6 Th Nityanand Infrastructure Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., Opp Abhudaya Nagar Vs. Rd, Mumbai Post Office, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai -400033 (Appellant) .. Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacn1981E Co No. 266/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 2255/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10) Nityanand Infrastructure Ltd., Acit, 7(2)(2), R. No. 623, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp Abhudaya Nagar Post Vs. Office, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, M.K. Rd, Mumbai Mumbai -400033 (Appellant) .. Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Sh. Vachashpati Tripathi, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Sh. Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Adv Sh. Rahul K. Hakani, ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01-07-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19-07-2019

…g Officer to reopen an assessment or issue a notice for reassessment provided that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. In a judgment 11 CO No. 266/Mum/2018 of a Division Bench of this Court in German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 285 ITR 26 delivered by one us, Shri. J.P. Devadhar, this Court held that though the power to reopen a concluded assessment under section 147 is wide, the power cannot be exercised mechanically or arbitrarily. This Court held that even after the introduction of the concept of deemed escapement of income by Explanation 2 to section 147 with effect from 1.4.19…

ASHWIN S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice Shri P.P.Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2010-2011) Ashwin S Mehta, Vs Dcit, Cent. Circle 23, 32, Madhuli Dr. A.B. Road, Now Dcit Cc 4(1), Worli, Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Pan : Abapm2121M (Appellant) Mumbai. (Respondent)

…did file the return, and in such a situation assuming jurisdiction on a wrong factual basis is not justified. 14. The Learned Authorised Representative also referred to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of German Remedies Ltd vs DCIT, 285 ITR 26 (Bom), wherein, it is held that where the assessment is sought to be reopened merely on suspicion that the assessee might have incurred expenditure for earning the dividend income and there is no material whatsoever to entertain a prima facie belief that the income has escaped assessment; the reasons entertained by the Assessing Officer that the i…

DCIT CIR 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KARGWAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross- objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Room No. M/S Kargwal 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 107, First Floor, Mumbai-400020. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent Co No. 75/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 7108/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Kargwal Construction Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd. 107, First Floor, Room No. 522, 5Th Vs. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400022 400020. Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent

…ctotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [356 ITR 381] (Guj.), (v) Gas & Power Investments Co. Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No. 1118/Mum/2014] dated M/s Kargwal Construction 5 ITA No. 7108/Mum/2016 & CO No. 75/Mum/2018 05.02.2016 (Mum-Trib), (vi) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT [285 ITR 26] (Bom.), (vii) C.M. Mahadeva v. CIT [404 ITR 747] (Karn.), (viii) CIT v. Maniben Valji Shah [283 ITR 453] (Bom.), (ix) CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company [220 CTR 531] (Del.), (x) Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar v. DCIT [77 taxmann.com 293] (Guj.), (xi) Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO & Ors [384 ITR 322] (Bom.), (xii) Vodafone India Services Ltd.…

ATOMSTROYEXPORT,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (IT) RG-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm M/S. Atomstroyexport Vs. Additional Director Of Representative Assessee: Income Tax (It)-1, Mumbai Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd., Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Central Avenue Anushakti Nagar Mumbai – 400 094 Pan/Gir No.Aafca3658N Appellant) .. Respondent) Additional Director Of Vs. M/S. Atomstroyexport Income Tax (It)-1, Mumbai Representative Assessee: Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd., Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Central Avenue Anushakti Nagar Mumbai – 400 094 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3658N Appellant) .. Respondent)

…export Section 44BBB. Reliance was placed by learned AR on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways 331 ITR 236. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of German Remedies Ltd., reported at 285 ITR 26. 11. Learned AR also placed on record, the order of Tribunal for the A.Y.2006-07 dated 04/12/2013 wherein exactly similar issue of reopening has been decided in favour of the assessee. The precise observation of the Tribunal was as under:- “12. We have considered the rival submissions, carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and the…

EPC INDUSTRIES LTD,NASHIK vs. ACIT OSD 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2007-08) Epc Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Osd 10(1) Plot No.H-109, Midc Mumbai Ambad Nashik – 422010 Pan : Aaace2659J (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions as stated above. (1) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] (2) Jashan Textiles Mills P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT – [(2006) 284 ITR 542 (Bom)] (3) German Remedies Ltd. Vs DCIT [(2006) 285 ITR 26(Bom)] (4) German Remedies Ltd. Vs CIT [(2006) 287 ITR 494(Bom)] (5) Siemens Information Systems Ltd Vs Asstt. CIT [(2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom)] (6) Haryana Accrylic Manufacturing Co.Vs.CIT[(2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del.)] (7) Asain Paints Vs Dy.CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom)] 5. Coming to the merits of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted…

ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. RAKESH KUMAR GARODIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Acit 24(3), Shri Rakesh Kumar Garodia, Room No.413,7Th Floor, Vs. ¾ Govind Nagar, Pawan Baug Road, Bkc, Bandra (E), Malad (West), Mumbai-400061. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No.: Aaapg8736D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…order u/s. 143(3) dated 14.11.2008. Ld AR of the assessee further relied upon the decision of ITAT Hyderabad in ITA No. 47/Hyd/13 titled as ITO vs. Dr. M. Shobha Ravhuveera and on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in German Remedies Ltd Vs DCIT(2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom). 4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. During the original assessment proceeding, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued along with the detailed queries. And particularly while query no.12, the AO seek the details of gift received by the assessee. The assessee furnished its reply alon…

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. UNIVERSAL FERRO & ALLIED CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2005-06)

…uoted above that power under section 147 cannot be used like the power of review to reopen the assessment and this is precisely what has been done in the present case. The Division Bench of this court in its judgment in the case of German Remedies Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 26, referred to above, has taken the same view. In our opinion, the following 10 M/s Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. observations from the judgment of the Division Bench of this court are relevant: "It is a settled position of law that though the power conferred under section 147 of the Income-tax Act for reopening the concluded assessment…

DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREYA LIFE SCINIDA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground of reopening is decided in favour of assessee, whereas ground of treating the non compete fee as revenue expenditure is decided in favour of Revenue

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7071/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Acit, Cc-44, Mumbai. Vs. Shreya Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Shreya House, 301-A, Pareira Hill Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 9890 C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R Mody सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2002-03, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147-13A Of The I.T. Act. 2. Following Grounds Taken By The Revenue :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Holding That The Notice Issued U/S.147 Is Bad In Law & Reassessment Made Is Invalid Without Appreciating The Fact That The Ao Had Not Discussed This Issue At All In His Original Assessment Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.2.50 Cr. Being 1/4Th Of Rs.10 Cr. Paid To M/S Rallies India Ltd As Non-Compete Fees Treated By The Ao As Capital Expenditure Without Appreciating The Facts Brought On Record By The Ao. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Grounds Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

…ll the relevant details pertaining to non compete fee. Further, the assessee relied on various judicial precedents on the issue of reassessment u/s.147 which are listed as under: - (i) Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT (2007) 294 ITR 101 (ii) German Remedies Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom) (iii) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (iv) CIT vs. Holck Larsen 85 ITR 467 (Bom) (v) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del.) (vi) N.C. Gupta vs. ACIT (2004) 90 ITD 768 (Del.) (vii) Sanghvi Swiss Refills P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 300 ITR 276 (Bom.) 6. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) held the reopening as invalid…