Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO

Just Textiles Ltd, Ambernath vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

…t realizing the fact that partially he has already taxed it in A Y 2007- 08. 10. Reliance was placed by learned AR on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Indivest Pvt. Ltd., 250 CTR 15/206 Taxman 351 and 6 M/s. Just Textiles Ltd., Prashan S.Joshi 324 ITR 154, wherein it was held that only reasons recorded by Assessing Officer must be considered. 11. Learned AR also relies upon the following decisions for the above proposition:-  Hindustan Lever Ltd., v R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bom)  Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election AIR 1978 SC 851  Mrs. Usha A Kalwani v S.N.Soni 272 ITR 67 (Bom)  Godrej Indu…

Sunil Prakash, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2), Mumbai

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई मुंबई ई ई ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ ई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6494/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Sunil Praka…

Kaushalya R Sampat, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Mrs. Kaushalya R. Sampat Income Tax Officer, Flat No.1A, Hill Top Society, 9(3)(2),Piramal Chambers, Pali Hill Road, Bandra(W) Vs. Lalbaug,Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 Pan No.Aaqps06609F Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri. K.Gopal, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. M.V. Rajguru, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 05-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 05-01-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

…eceipt on retirement is taxable or not is answered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Riyaz A. Sheikh (2014) 41 taxman.com 455 (Bom), wherein considering the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO (2010) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) has held as under:- “3. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does refer to the decision of this Court in the matter of N.A. Mody (supra) and states that it follows the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT V/s. Tribhuvandas G. Patel reported in 115 ITR 95 and the same has been reversed by the Apex Court in Tribhuvandas G. Patel V/s. CI…

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Fiat India P.Ltd ( Now Known As New Holland (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain D C I T – 10(1) M/S. Fiat India P. Ltd. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor (Now New Holland (India) P. Ltd.) 303, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400098 Pan – Aaaci3922Q Appellant Respondent

…had escaped assessment. The reasons so recorded, could never have led a prudent person to form an opinion that the income had escaped assessment. There was absolutely no basis for the A.O. to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment 324 ITR 154 (Born) Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO. 2.3(b) The appellant's argument and submissions are also have force that the present reopening was made only on the basis of change of opinion. The appellant disclosed all relevant facts pertaining to these issues in its accounts and balance sheet The appellant's return of was income scrutinized u/s.143(3) of the…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

…Bom.) on the issue of reopening u/s 147/148 of the Act, considering various judicial pronouncements like Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.), CIT vs K Mohan & Company (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom.), Prashant S. Joshi vs Income Tax Officer (2010) 324 ITR 154 (Bom.) held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act cannot be sustained as the same is without jurisdiction, therefore, in our opinion, the reopening was not justified, therefore, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. 3. So far as, merits of the appeal is concerned, though we are not expected to go into the merits of the case still d…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…We find that by the impugned order, the Tribunal while holding that amounts received by a partner on his retirement from partnership firm are exempt from capital gains tax relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154/189 Taxman 1 (Bom). Counsel for the revenue is unable to point out as to how the decision in the matter of Prashant S. Joshi (supra) inter alia holding that no capital gains are payable by an erstwhile partner on amounts received on retirement would not be applicable to the present case. The only submission on behalf of the revenue is that there…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…We find that by the impugned order, the Tribunal while holding that amounts received by a partner on his retirement from partnership firm are exempt from capital gains tax relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154/189 Taxman 1 (Bom). Counsel for the revenue is unable to point out as to how the decision in the matter of Prashant S. Joshi (supra) inter alia holding that no capital gains are payable by an erstwhile partner on amounts received on retirement would not be applicable to the present case. The only submission on behalf of the revenue is that there…

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)

…C) 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 Trib) dated 2nd January, 2015 xii) Prashant Joshi vs Income Tax Officer & Anr, (2010) (Bom HC) 324 ITR 154 6. The Ld. AR further argued that the ACIT (LTU) without first dealing with the objections and disposing of the said objections through a separate speaking order dismissed the appellant‟s claim of deduction u/s 80IB in the reassessment order itself. It was further argued by the Ld. AR that in respect of the reassessment notice dated 7.3.2008 iss…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…atisfied is that the Assessing Officer must have 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and it must not be a mere change of opinion on which re-assessment is initiated. 5.1.3 In the case of Prashant S. Joshi v ITO reported at 324 ITR 154 the Bombay High Court held that even if there is no assessment u/s 143(3), reopening u/s 147 is bad if there are no proper ‘reasons to believe’ and that the only reasons that can be considered for reopening are the reasons recorded by the AO. The Court held as follows: "9. Section 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe t…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…atisfied is that the Assessing Officer must have 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and it must not be a mere change of opinion on which re-assessment is initiated. 5.1.3 In the case of Prashant S. Joshi v ITO reported at 324 ITR 154 the Bombay High Court held that even if there is no assessment u/s 143(3), reopening u/s 147 is bad if there are no proper ‘reasons to believe’ and that the only reasons that can be considered for reopening are the reasons recorded by the AO. The Court held as follows: "9. Section 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe t…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…atisfied is that the Assessing Officer must have 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and it must not be a mere change of opinion on which re-assessment is initiated. 5.1.3 In the case of Prashant S. Joshi v ITO reported at 324 ITR 154 the Bombay High Court held that even if there is no assessment u/s 143(3), reopening u/s 147 is bad if there are no proper ‘reasons to believe’ and that the only reasons that can be considered for reopening are the reasons recorded by the AO. The Court held as follows: "9. Section 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe t…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…atisfied is that the Assessing Officer must have 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and it must not be a mere change of opinion on which re-assessment is initiated. 5.1.3 In the case of Prashant S. Joshi v ITO reported at 324 ITR 154 the Bombay High Court held that even if there is no assessment u/s 143(3), reopening u/s 147 is bad if there are no proper ‘reasons to believe’ and that the only reasons that can be considered for reopening are the reasons recorded by the AO. The Court held as follows: "9. Section 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe t…

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. ADIT 1(1)

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…quiring the jurisdiction by the AO is merely pretence and not based on any cogent material or foundational fact. In support of his contention, he strongly relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant Joshi, reported in [2010] 324 ITR 154. In this case he pointed out that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has taken note of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and held that the first and foremost condition is that conditions laid down in section 147 should be fulfilled. Not only that, they ha…

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. ADIT 1(1)

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…quiring the jurisdiction by the AO is merely pretence and not based on any cogent material or foundational fact. In support of his contention, he strongly relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant Joshi, reported in [2010] 324 ITR 154. In this case he pointed out that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has taken note of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and held that the first and foremost condition is that conditions laid down in section 147 should be fulfilled. Not only that, they ha…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Parshuram Amin, Gujrat

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘सी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5426/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumbai- Vs. Parshuram Maganlal 400020 Amin, M-19, Someshwar Enclave, Nr. South Gujrat University, Udhana, Magdalla Road, Surat, Gujrat-395007 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : ABLPA 8022 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5427/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumba…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Parashuram Maganlal Amin, Gujrat

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘सी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5426/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumbai- Vs. Parshuram Maganlal 400020 Amin, M-19, Someshwar Enclave, Nr. South Gujrat University, Udhana, Magdalla Road, Surat, Gujrat-395007 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : ABLPA 8022 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5427/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumba…

Anant B. Tawade, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6362/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Anand B. Tawade, Ito – 17(3)(1), बनाम/ 106, Roop Rayon Mill Piramal Chambers, V. Compound, Lalbaug, Near Datt Mandir, Mumbai. Jijamata Nagar, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400 033. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Acdpt 9937A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…3.858/- was paid towards his share in goodwill on his retirement as partner from the partnership firm. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO & Anr., (2010) 324 ITR 154 and submitted that the amount received by the assessee on retirement from the partnership firm being the goodwill amount cannot be brought to tax. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon section 45(4) of the Act and submitted that the said amount is exigible to tax in the hands of the firm and not in the hands of the ITA 6362/Mum/2012 8 as…