Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

M/S Gujarat Realtores, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

…eferred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar Assistant Commissioner reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) and submitted Commissioner reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) and submitted Commissioner reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) and submitted that in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer that there that in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer that there that in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer that ther…

M/S. Gujarat Realtors (Firm), Bhayander vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

…eferred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar Assistant Commissioner reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) and submitted Commissioner reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) and submitted Commissioner reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) and submitted that in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer that there that in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer that there that in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer that ther…

DCIT 19 3, Mumbai vs. Sanjiv Mahendra Parikh, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…planation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case of where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.” 6.1. We note that in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Badkar 268 ITR 332 (Bom) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has, while examining re-opening assessment in a case where assessment was previously framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, held as under: “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully 8 CO No. 19/Mum/2024 (Assessment Y…

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

…vital statutory requirement. 4.2 To address his contentions, ld. Counsel placed reliance on certain judicial precedents including decisions by Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court of Bombay. The same are listed as under: (1) Hindustan Lever Ltd. -vs- R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bom) [2004] (ii) Titanor Components Ltd. -vs- ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom) [2012] (iii) Milton Plastics Ltd. -vs- Mudit Nagpal, 151 taxmann.com 24 (Bombay) [2023] (iv) Vibrant Securities (P.) Ltd. -vs- ITO, 455 ITR 58 (Bombay) [2023] 5. Legal issue raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been dismissed without any deliberation and explanation.…

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

…vital statutory requirement. 4.2 To address his contentions, ld. Counsel placed reliance on certain judicial precedents including decisions by Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court of Bombay. The same are listed as under: (1) Hindustan Lever Ltd. -vs- R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bom) [2004] (ii) Titanor Components Ltd. -vs- ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom) [2012] (iii) Milton Plastics Ltd. -vs- Mudit Nagpal, 151 taxmann.com 24 (Bombay) [2023] (iv) Vibrant Securities (P.) Ltd. -vs- ITO, 455 ITR 58 (Bombay) [2023] 5. Legal issue raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been dismissed without any deliberation and explanation.…

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND MS PADMAVATHY S, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share and बिधम/ ITO, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACV9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue by: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई…

Balaji Buillion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/s Balaji Bullion & DCIT Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3rd floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. PAN NO. AADCB 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR : 27/03/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 03/04/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28.03.2018 passed by…

Priyasha Meven Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3814/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Priyasha Meven Finance बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(2)(1) Ltd Room No. 642/669, Vs. R 404 Rotunda Building, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Bombay Samachar Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Fort-400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp2042F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.08.2023 For Ay. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Had Not Taken This Legal Issue Before The Ld. Cit(A). However, According To Him, Since It Is A Legal Issue, It Can Be Raised For The First Time Before This Tribunal & For Such A Preposition Relied Upon The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ntpc Vs. Cit (229 Itr 383) (Sc). Per Contra, The Ld. Dr Objects To Raising Of This Legal Issue Before This Tribunal For The First Time. According To Him, The Assessee Had Not Taken Up This Issue Before The Ld. Cit(A), Therefore, The Same Should Be Remanded Back To The File Of The Ld.

…t of income according to Ld. AR itself goes on to show that AO ought to have conducted preliminary enquiry and not resorted to re-opening in the case. Further, according to the Ld. AR, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd (268 ITR 332) has held that while examining the validity of the re-opening of the assessment, the Appellate Authorities ought to consider the reasons recorded on standalone basis. According to him, nothing can be added nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded by the AO. The Hon’ble High Court observed that “No inference can be allowed to be drawn…