(i) Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd. v. ITO

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…ACC Limited 6. The Ld AR has also stated that in absence of no 'new' tangible material, reopening is bad-in-law for which he relied upon following decisions: (i) Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2013] 349 ITR 76 (Bombay) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) (308 ITR 195) (Bombay) (iv) Kalpataru Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 284 (Bombay) (v) Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 168 (Bombay) 7. In addition to above, Ld. AR has also stated that when the subject matter is in appeal, reassessment notice cannot be issued, reassessment notice is bas…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…ACC Limited 6. The Ld AR has also stated that in absence of no 'new' tangible material, reopening is bad-in-law for which he relied upon following decisions: (i) Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2013] 349 ITR 76 (Bombay) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) (308 ITR 195) (Bombay) (iv) Kalpataru Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 284 (Bombay) (v) Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 168 (Bombay) 7. In addition to above, Ld. AR has also stated that when the subject matter is in appeal, reassessment notice cannot be issued, reassessment notice is bas…

ACIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULATURE AND RURAL DEVELOPEMENT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () A.C.I.T-3(2)(2) National Bank For Agriculture & R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Rural Development, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai -400 020 Complex,Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaact4020G (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

…ssment. Re-opening in the absence of any fresh material coming to the notice of the Assessing Officer is contrary to the letter and intent of various judicial pronouncements some of which are mentioned below: a) In the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2012) (349 ITR 76) (Bom.), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that re-opening without any fresh ITA No.4277/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 8 ACIT 3(2)(2)Vs. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development tangible material coming to the AO, is illegal. This, too, was the case where the AO had re-opened the assessment within 4 years from the end of the asse…

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

…pleaded that there was no escapement of income and it is purely a change of opinion. The crux of the argument is in support of the impugned order. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Amitabh Bachhan (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom.), Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom.) and CIT vs Kelvintor India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the light of the arguments advanced from both sides, now question arises whether there was a “change of opinion” by the Asse…

AMOLIKA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -9(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08&2008-09)

…rial on record, the order of the Assessing Officer for reopening is bad in law as has been held in the following judgments. i) Kelvinator India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Kalvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) iii) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) iv) 11 I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 Amolika Constructions Pvt. Ltd. CartiniIndia Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom HC) v) Asian Paints Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC). Furthermore, we observe that the reasons recorded by the AO nowhere speaks that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts…

DCIT (IT) 1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. B4U INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD,

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM) I.T.A. No. 2350/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2005-06) I.T.A. No. 1375/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2006-07) Deputy Director of Income M/s. B4U International Tax, (IT)-3(2)/DCIT(IT)- Vs. Holdings Ltd. 1(3)(2) C/o. B4U Television Scindia House Network (I) P. Ltd. Ballard Pier B-47, Paramount Bldg. N.M Road 3rd Floor, New Link Rd. Mumbai-400 038. Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AABCB4729M Assessee by Shri Arvind Sonde Department by Shri Samuel Darse Date of Hearing 3.8.2017 Date…

YES BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ “ “ “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/1991/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Yes Bank Limited DCIT, -8(3)(2) 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, discovery Room No.615, 6th Floor, A…

LUPIN LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…dia Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) iii) Motilal R. Todi, ITA No. 2910/Mum/2013 (Mum Trib) dated 22nd September, 2015 iv) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom HC) v) Oriental Insurance Company, (2015) 94 CCH 12 (Del HC) vi) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) vii) Cartini India Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom HC) viii) Asian Paints Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC) ix) Asteriods Trading & Investment P. Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom HC) x) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Orient Craft Ltd., (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) 8 M/s. Lupin Limited xi) M/s. GTL Limited vs ACIT, ITA No. 6971/Mum/2010 (Mum…

ASST CIT CIR 23, MUMBAI vs. OBEROI REALITY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cir.23, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 002 ... Appellant

…of arguments, reliance has been placed on the following decisions to assail the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act :- i) Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 525/PN/2013 dated 24.11.2014 (ITAT, Pune) ii) Shri Amitabh Bachchan, 349 ITR 76 (Bom) 13. On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has pointed out that there is no infirmity in the initiation of proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act inasmuch as the reasons have been duly recorded and further, at the stage of recording of reasons, the Assessing Officer has only to formulate a prima facie opin…