Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-\nobjection of the assessee are dismissed

…by the assessing\nauthority. The appellant will be entitled to take all the points\nbefore the assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed.\nThere will be no order as to costs.\"\n\n14. The Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT\n(1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) has observed, as under:\n\n\"It is true that if the ITO had made some investigation,\nhe would have been able to find out what the written\ndown value of the assets sold and consequently he would\nhave been able to find out the price in excess of their written\ndown value realized by the assessee. It can be said that the ITO\nif he had been d…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…to deal with a somewhat similar situation. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. First Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638, Malegaon Electricity Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 466 and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 and the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 and Gruh Finance Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 4822, this Court observed: "...The Assessing Officer has in the reasoned order passed by him indicated the basis on which income exigi…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…to deal with a somewhat similar situation. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. First Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638, Malegaon Electricity Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 466 and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 and the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 and Gruh Finance Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 4822, this Court observed: "...The Assessing Officer has in the reasoned order passed by him indicated the basis on which income exigi…

JSK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5891, 5892, 5893, 5894, 5895, 5896 & 5897/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. JSK Industries Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd., Central Circle-8(1), 9 A.K. Naik Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Near New Empire M.K. Marg, Cinema, New Marine Lines, CST, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABCJ 5937F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.6311, 6312, 6313, 6314, 6315 & 6316/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-1…

SIKKIM FERRO ALLOYS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) ITA Nos.3968 & 3969/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2011-12) DCIT,CC-1(4) Sikkim Ferro Alloys Limited Room No.902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Apsara Cinema Bldg Old CGO Building, M.K.Road Dr.D.B.Marg, Grant Road(E) Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 007 PAN/GIR No. AAGCS8115B : (Revenue) (Assessee) & ITA Nos.3245&3246/Mum/2016 and ITA Nos.2062&2063/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08,2010-11 & 2011-12) Sikkim Ferro Alloys Limited DCIT,CC-1(4) 2nd Floor, Apsara Cinema Bldg Room No.902, 9th Floor…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. SIKKIM FERRO ALLOYS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) ITA Nos.3968 & 3969/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2011-12) DCIT,CC-1(4) Sikkim Ferro Alloys Limited Room No.902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Apsara Cinema Bldg Old CGO Building, M.K.Road Dr.D.B.Marg, Grant Road(E) Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 007 PAN/GIR No. AAGCS8115B : (Revenue) (Assessee) & ITA Nos.3245&3246/Mum/2016 and ITA Nos.2062&2063/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08,2010-11 & 2011-12) Sikkim Ferro Alloys Limited DCIT,CC-1(4) 2nd Floor, Apsara Cinema Bldg Room No.902, 9th Floor…

SIKKIM FERRO ALLOYS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6 (OLD), MUMBAI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) ITA Nos.3968 & 3969/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2011-12) DCIT,CC-1(4) Sikkim Ferro Alloys Limited Room No.902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Apsara Cinema Bldg Old CGO Building, M.K.Road Dr.D.B.Marg, Grant Road(E) Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 007 PAN/GIR No. AAGCS8115B : (Revenue) (Assessee) & ITA Nos.3245&3246/Mum/2016 and ITA Nos.2062&2063/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08,2010-11 & 2011-12) Sikkim Ferro Alloys Limited DCIT,CC-1(4) 2nd Floor, Apsara Cinema Bldg Room No.902, 9th Floor…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMAZON METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

…of change of opinion. The question of change of opinion arises, when the AO forms an opinion and decides not to make an addition and holds that the appellant was correct in his stand. 8.11 The Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) has observed, as under : If is true that if the ITO had made, some investi0aiionf particularly if He had looked into the previous assessment records, he would have been able to find out what the written down value of the assets sold was and consequently he would have been able to find out the price in excess of their written down value realiz…

DCIE CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.PALI FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

…of change of opinion. The question of change of opinion arises, when the AO forms an opinion and decides not to make an addition and holds that the appellant was correct in his stand. 8.11 The Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) has observed, as under : If is true that if the ITO had made, some investi0aiionf particularly if He had looked into the previous assessment records, he would have been able to find out what the written down value of the assets sold was and consequently he would have been able to find out the price in excess of their written down value reali…

DCIT CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ACRO EXPORTS TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

…of change of opinion. The question of change of opinion arises, when the AO forms an opinion and decides not to make an addition and holds that the appellant was correct in his stand. 8.11 The Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) has observed, as under : If is true that if the ITO had made, some investi0aiionf particularly if He had looked into the previous assessment records, he would have been able to find out what the written down value of the assets sold was and consequently he would have been able to find out the price in excess of their written down value realiz…

ASST CIT 19(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHESH BROTHERS, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v/s ITO, 236 ITR 34 (SC); ii) ACIT v/s Rajesh Jhavari Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500; iii) Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. v/s CIT, 78 ITR 466; iv) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v/s DCIT, 52 DTR 353; and v) Piaggio Vehicles v/s DCIT, 290 ITR 377. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. It 7 M/s. Ashesh Brothers is evident from the material on record as well as the reasons recorded for re–openin…

DIXIT PROCESSORS,BHIWANDI vs. ITO WD 1(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Dixit Processors, Ito-1(1) H. No. 1581, New Kaneri, Kalyan Vs. Near Jain Compound, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Aaefd1227G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

…the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision on the question Dixit Processor before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one…

AKASH PUROCHEM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-14(1)(1) M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent

…be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision on the question before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one…

ANIL BIHANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani Acit-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aadpb1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

…be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision on the question before the AO lies on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Anil Bihani 5 Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may…

ACIT - 19(1), MUMBAI vs. GANESH J. MODI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

…ial and necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one…

GANESH J MODI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

…ial and necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the on the assessee as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, 200 (SC),Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC), CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437, 445 (SC),Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560, 572 (SC). Every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one…

VINOD K.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…t from the books produced, the ITO may not on that account be precluded from exercising the power to assess income which had escaped assessment" 2.4.18 To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) where the Court observed (page 471) : 'It is true that if the ITO had made some investigation, particularly if he had looked into the previous assessment records, he would have been able to find out what the written down value of the assets sold was and consequently he would have been able to find out the price in excess of their written down…

VINOD K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…t from the books produced, the ITO may not on that account be precluded from exercising the power to assess income which had escaped assessment" 2.4.18 To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) where the Court observed (page 471) : 'It is true that if the ITO had made some investigation, particularly if he had looked into the previous assessment records, he would have been able to find out what the written down value of the assets sold was and consequently he would have been able to find out the price in excess of their written down…

JAYANT MANILAL GANDHY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

…hagwan Industrial Pvt. Ltd. 31 STC 293 (SC), Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs ITO 236 ITR 34, Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. vs ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del.), Kantamani Venkata Narain & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC), Malagaon Electricity Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs Manoranjan Pictures Corporation 228 ITR 202 (Del.) and various other decisions as mentioned in the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2.6. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, concl…