NYK Lime (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (No.2)

Biddle Sawyer Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, as far as Ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2006-07

…ffect are the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Business Support Services Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2015) 232 Taxman 702 (Bombay), Bhavesh Developers vs. Assessing Officer & Ors., 329 ITR 249 (Bom.) and Purity Techtextile (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 325 ITR 459 (Bom.). 8. In the above background, we may now examine the fact-position of the instant case. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act read as under :- “Reading of profit and loss account for the year under review reveals that the assessee company, who is engaged in manufacturing of pharmaceutical pro…

Mohd. Zammer Cutterwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 17(3), Mumbai

…,dated 07/05/201,had opposed the audit objections and had requested the audit party to drop the same,that even after opposing the said audit objections,he proceeded to reopen the case of the assessee. The AR relied upon the case of Purity Techtextiles P.Ltd. (325 ITR 459)and argued that the assessment was passed under the dictates of the audit party, that AO had not formed any independent opinion, that it was a case of change of opinion. 7.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had raised more additional grounds before the Tribunal and same were not agita…

Mayur P Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Mayur P Jain Income Tax Officer 1101 Chaitya Tower 81, Shivdas Ward No. 22(2)(2) Chapsi Marg, Mazgaon Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 010 Pan No. Aegpj1871E Appellant .. Respondent .. Dr. P Daniel, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 24-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 02-06-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

…is on the basis of audit objection and in the case of reopening on the basis of audit objection he relied on the decision of the Page 5 of 10 Mayur P Jain; A.Y: 09-10 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Private Limited vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 (Bom), Delhi High Court in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 308 (Delhi) and Gujarat High Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 392 ITR 336 (Guj) and also Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR relied…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

…iv) Cartini India Limited v ACIT (314 ITR 275) (Bom.) v) CIT v Prima Paper & Engg. Ltd. (364 ITR 222) (Bom.) vi) Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. ACIT (295 ITR 333) (Bom.) vii) CIT v ICICI Bank Ltd. (349 ITR 482) (Bom.) viii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 361)(Bom.) ix) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v ACIT (377 ITR 405)(Bom.) x) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v ACIT (371 ITR 225) (Bom.) xi) Rabo India Finance Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 528)(Bom.) 9 Tata Finance Ltd. (now merged with Tata Motors Ltd) ITA No.2961 & 2962/Mum/2014, A.Ys.2003-04 & 2005-06 13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the auth…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd ( Formelry Zee Telefilms Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

…,dated 07/05/201,had opposed the audit objections and had requested the audit party to drop the same,that even after opposing the said audit objections,he proceeded to reopen the case of the assessee. The AR relied upon the case of Purity Techtextiles P.Ltd. (325 ITR 459)and argued that the assessment was passed under the dictates of the audit party, that AO had not formed any independent opinion, that it was a case of change of opinion. 7.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had raised more additional grounds before the Tribunal and same were not agita…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2005-06)

…l return of income. The perusal of the appellant's submission also suggest that the said reopening has taken place based on audit objection which I find that the jurisdictional High Court, Mumbai in the case of Purity Techtextile Pvt Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 325 ITR 459 has categorically held that reopening of assessment based on audit objecting can not be held to be a justified action. In addition to this, I am also of the considered view that once the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) wherein the fact was duly disclosed by the assessee and then after subsequent action of reopening of the assessment on simil…

ACIT (OSD) CIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Greenland Fertilizers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Acit (Osd) Cit 3(1) M/S. Greenland Fertilizers Ltd. R.No.607, 75-B, Mittal Court, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point Vs. M.K. Rd. Mumbai-400021 Mumbai -400020 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaach1784M Revenue By Shri Nitin Waghmode (Dr) Respondent By None

…ly and legally invalid in the eye of law. 3.5. Thus, viewed from any angle, the reopening was bad in law and has been rightly quashed by the Ld. CIT(A) by relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Pvt. Ltd. vs. 325 ITR 459 (Bombay) & M/s. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Writ Petition no.430/2012). We do not find anything wrong in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and these are upheld. Thus, gourds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 4. In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02. 2016. (Saktijit D…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel International (India) Ltd, ( Formelry Known As Corus International India P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…original return of income, which was filed. The said return of income was annexed with its balance sheet and tax audit report. Subsequent to that, even I find that the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 325 ITR 459 has held that the reopening of the assessment based on the audit objection cannot be held to be justified. Secondly, I find that the fringe benefit tax on the said contribution towards superannuation fund has been paid by the appellant company in the A.Y. 2007-08 on actual payment and hence there are no encashment of fringe benefits which have es…