Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following observation of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs R.B.Wadkar: [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom.): “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No subs…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following observation of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs R.B.Wadkar: [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom.): “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No subs…

Dy CIT, CC-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

…Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, pointed out that the reasons for reopening of assessment must be examined on standalone basis, as is the mandate of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs R B Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)], and as the only reason given in the said reasons is the assessee being stated to be „key managerial person‟ and „director‟ of the assessee company, these reasons, in the absence of any shareholdings in the assessee company, cannot be reason enough to concluded that the assessee and Biomatrix were associated enterprises. Learned counsel fo…

Dy CIT, CC-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

…Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, pointed out that the reasons for reopening of assessment must be examined on standalone basis, as is the mandate of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs R B Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)], and as the only reason given in the said reasons is the assessee being stated to be „key managerial person‟ and „director‟ of the assessee company, these reasons, in the absence of any shareholdings in the assessee company, cannot be reason enough to concluded that the assessee and Biomatrix were associated enterprises. Learned counsel fo…

M/S Radiance Exim Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (1)(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.6635/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Radiance Exim Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-8(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.621A, 6Th Floor, Vs. Shiv Chawl No.2, Shiv Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Sagar Sejar Samiti, Tanaji Road, Mumbai-400020. Nagar, Kurar Village, Malad (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400097. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr4706L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 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)-21, Mumbai Dated 31.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Legality/Validity Of The Action Of Ao To Re-Open The Assessment Of Ay 2007-08 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 26.03.2014 & Consequent Passing Of Re-Assessment Order Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015, Which According To The Ld. Ar, Is Bad In Law For Several Reasons (Infra). According To The Ld. Ar, The Ao Did Not Had The Requisite Jurisdiction To Re-Open The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Because The Reasons Recorded By The Ao Dated 18.03.2014 (Refer Page

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6635/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/s. Radiance Exim Pvt. बिधम/ ITO-8(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.621A, 6th Floor, Vs. Shiv Chawl No.2, Shiv Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Sagar Sejar Samiti, Tanaji Road, Mumbai-400020. Nagar, Kurar Village, Malad (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400097. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCR4706L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue by: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Da…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6670/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(3)(1), Mumbai v/s Satya Securities Ltd. 1009, Maker Chamber–V …………….Respondent 10th Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAECS9414M Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/w Shri Saurabh Gupta Revenue by : Shri P.R. Mane a/w Smt. Kanupriya Damor Date of Hearing – 10/08/2022 Date of Order – 31/10/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present…

Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6671/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(3)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Satya Securities Ltd. 1009, Maker Chamber–V …………….Respondent 10th Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 PAN–AAECS9414M ITA No.1472/Mum./2017 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) M/s. Satya Securities Ltd. 1009, Maker Chamber–V ……………. Appellant 10th Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 PAN–AAECS9414M v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Responden…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6671/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(3)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Satya Securities Ltd. 1009, Maker Chamber–V …………….Respondent 10th Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 PAN–AAECS9414M ITA No.1472/Mum./2017 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) M/s. Satya Securities Ltd. 1009, Maker Chamber–V ……………. Appellant 10th Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 PAN–AAECS9414M v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Responden…

Sangeetkumar Sawarmal Hisaria, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-2(4), Mumbai

…imperative on the part of the assessing officer to show that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for his assessment. It has been held so by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Level (268 ITR 332). “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitutio…

Aniruddha N. Malpani, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 3 (2), Mumbai

…2019 hands of the Company and not in the hands of Assessee, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee moved to the next leg of his argument. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT: 268 ITR 332 (Bom) rendered in the context of reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act, he submitted that nothing can be added or deleted from the satisfaction recorded. Since no additions have been made qua the item for which satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C of the Act, the jurisdictional basis of invoking…

Anjali A. Malpani, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 3(2), Mumbai

…2019 hands of the Company and not in the hands of Assessee, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee moved to the next leg of his argument. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT: 268 ITR 332 (Bom) rendered in the context of reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act, he submitted that nothing can be added or deleted from the satisfaction recorded. Since no additions have been made qua the item for which satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C of the Act, the jurisdictional basis of invoking…

M/S. Arshiya Rail Infrastucture Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.574/Mum./2021 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) M/s. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd. 302, Level–3, Cheejay House ……………. Appellant F–Block, Shiv Sagar Estate Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai 400 018 PAN – AAGCA9648B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle–6(4), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Piyush Chhajed a/w Shri Sumit Mantri Revenue by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing – 14/06/2022 Date of Order – 09/09/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP…