German Remidies 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

…rs (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 provisions of sec 147 of the Act can be applied wherein in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the AO based on the principle that the taxpayer would not be al…

BUSINESS INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 12 (1), MUMBAI

Accordingly appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3803 To 3806/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2008-09)

…ubmitted that it clearly indicates that AO has not applied his mind considering the above said judicial precedents that the deemed dividend can be charged only in the hands of the shareholders. In this regard, he relied on Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vrs. DCIT (2010) 323 ITR 97 (Bom), in which Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under:- 9 I.T.A. No. 3803 to 3806/Mum/2018 Business India Even after the introduction of the concept of deemed escapement of income by Explanation 2 to section 147 with effect from April 1st 1989, the belief that income had escaped assessment must be a prudent belief and not a mere ch…

ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX - 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TPL PLASTECH LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6206/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-11-(3)(1) M/S. Tpl Plastech Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.204, 2Nd Floor 10-11, Shivali Indl. Estate Aaykar Bhavan Andheri(E) Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai -400 072. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1968-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Mayura Pratap-Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/12/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

…Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. c) CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan (ITA No. 4646 of 2010 Bom HC) d) M.J. Pharmaceutical Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 297 ITR 119 (Bom) e) D. T. & T. D. C. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 234 (Del.). f) Godrej Agrovat Ltd. Vs DCIT 323 ITR 97 (Bombay HC) 7. In a nutshell, the reopening of the assessment in the case of appellant was bad in law on the following grounds: a) Absence of fresh tangible material in order to form a reasonable belief that income of the appellant had escaped assessment; b) The notice u/s. 148 was issued only with the intention of making roving enquiries which is…

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

…sment unless and until there is additional information/tangible material before the AO to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income. This issue has been dealt in by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs DCIT [2010] 323 ITR 97 (Bom), wherein it is held that the Assessing Officer cannot act in excess of the restrains on his jurisdiction to reopen an assessment in exercise of the powers under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act. Hon’ble High Court noted that the reasons which have been recorded by the AO are ex facie extraneous to the question as to whether asses…

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABBOTT INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

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

…ar under consideration, it has rightly claimed deduction u/s 80M to the extent of dividend income received of Rs.1,68,13,000. This proposition is further supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd vs DCIT (2010) 323 ITR 97 (Bom) and also the decision of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Jaihind Investments Pvt Ltd vs ACIT in ITA 1222/PN/2009. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80M in respect of dividend received from wholly owned subsidiary company. Hence, we direct the AO to delete addition made towards disall…

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

…eopening is invalid as the notice was issued beyond a period of four years, as per the assessee, it is not permissible for which reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of German Remidies Ltd. vs DCIT 287 ITR 494, Godrej Agrovet Ltd. vs DCIT & Anr. 323 ITR 97, Nirmal Bang Securites Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 382 ITR 93(Bom.) and CIT & Anr. Vs Foramar France 264 ITR 566 (SC). It was also contended that the notice was issued to the assessee on the basis of audit objection. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306(SC), Idea Celluar Ltd. vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom.), ICICI Hom…

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

…eopening is invalid as the notice was issued beyond a period of four years, as per the assessee, it is not permissible for which reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of German Remidies Ltd. vs DCIT 287 ITR 494, Godrej Agrovet Ltd. vs DCIT & Anr. 323 ITR 97, Nirmal Bang Securites Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 382 ITR 93(Bom.) and CIT & Anr. Vs Foramar France 264 ITR 566 (SC). It was also contended that the notice was issued to the assessee on the basis of audit objection. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306(SC), Idea Celluar Ltd. vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom.), ICICI Hom…

GENHERAL MACHINERY TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 1176/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 M/S. General Machinery & The Acit, Circle-1(1), बनाम/ Technical Services Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 1-B, Parekh Mahal, 1St Floor, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 2083Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Sharad Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran

…ses incurred towards repairs and maintenance and reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion is not permissible in law. He places reliance on the following decisions: 1. Rallis India Ltd Vs ACIT (323 ITR 54) (Bombay H. C) 2. Godrej Agrovat Ltd. Vs DCIT 323 ITR 97 (Bombay H. C) 3. CIT Vs Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561) (SC) 3 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that this ground has not raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and for the first time this ground is raised before the Tribunal. He submits that the matter has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submits that there is no change of op…