Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd.

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

…Act is missing and thus renders the reasons to be reasons to suspect for making further investigation. 19. At this stage, it is relevant to note the following observation of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd., [2020] 422 ITR 337 (Bom.): “13. In this case, the reasons as made available to the Respondent- Assessee as produced before the Tribunal merely indicates information received from the DIT (Investigation) about a particular entity, entering into suspicious transactions. However, that material is not further linked by any reason to come to the conclusion that the Res…

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

…Act is missing and thus renders the reasons to be reasons to suspect for making further investigation. 19. At this stage, it is relevant to note the following observation of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd., [2020] 422 ITR 337 (Bom.): “13. In this case, the reasons as made available to the Respondent- Assessee as produced before the Tribunal merely indicates information received from the DIT (Investigation) about a particular entity, entering into suspicious transactions. However, that material is not further linked by any reason to come to the conclusion that the Res…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…thered or received by the AO in any manner would enable him to form satisfaction that appellant's income (nonresident) had escaped assessment. Thus there is no proper reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. PCIT v/s. Shodiman Investment Pvt Ltd. (2020) 422 ITR 337 (Bom) Ankita A Choksey v/s. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom) (HC) 8. The AO himself never conducted any direct enquiries of investigation from any person or any source to establish that the appellant had maintained any accounts. 9. The AO did not analyze the facts and circumstances before issuing notice u/s 148 but simply acted on the advice/report…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…thered or received by the AO in any manner would enable him to form satisfaction that appellant's income (nonresident) had escaped assessment. Thus there is no proper reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. PCIT v/s. Shodiman Investment Pvt Ltd. (2020) 422 ITR 337 (Bom) Ankita A Choksey v/s. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom) (HC) 8. The AO himself never conducted any direct enquiries of investigation from any person or any source to establish that the appellant had maintained any accounts. 9. The AO did not analyze the facts and circumstances before issuing notice u/s 148 but simply acted on the advice/report…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…thered or received by the AO in any manner would enable him to form satisfaction that appellant's income (nonresident) had escaped assessment. Thus there is no proper reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. PCIT v/s. Shodiman Investment Pvt Ltd. (2020) 422 ITR 337 (Bom) Ankita A Choksey v/s. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom) (HC) 8. The AO himself never conducted any direct enquiries of investigation from any person or any source to establish that the appellant had maintained any accounts. 9. The AO did not analyze the facts and circumstances before issuing notice u/s 148 but simply acted on the advice/report…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…thered or received by the AO in any manner would enable him to form satisfaction that appellant's income (nonresident) had escaped assessment. Thus there is no proper reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. PCIT v/s. Shodiman Investment Pvt Ltd. (2020) 422 ITR 337 (Bom) Ankita A Choksey v/s. ITO (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom) (HC) 8. The AO himself never conducted any direct enquiries of investigation from any person or any source to establish that the appellant had maintained any accounts. 9. The AO did not analyze the facts and circumstances before issuing notice u/s 148 but simply acted on the advice/report…

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 and Hon'ble Bombay High court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 vs Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd 422 ITR 337 where it is held that Where Assessing Officer had issued a reassessment notice on basis of intimation from DDIT (Inv.) about a particular entity entering into suspicious transactions, this was clearly in breach of settled position in law that re-opening notice has to be issued by Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satis…

M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 and Hon'ble Bombay High court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 vs Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd 422 ITR 337 where it is held that Where Assessing Officer had issued a reassessment notice on basis of intimation from DDIT (Inv.) about a particular entity entering into suspicious transactions, this was clearly in breach of settled position in law that re-opening notice has to be issued by Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satis…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…XMAN.COM 29 BOM Assessee issued debentures Rs.64 cr. to S who received unsecured loan, prima fascia from a shell co. No verification of tangible material received, amount to outsourcing reason to believe. Court held notice to be bad. SHODIMAN INVESTMENT P LTD 422 ITR 337 BOM Information were received from inv. wing as to search on one party who carried suspicious transaction, based on information notice was issued In para 11 the Court observed the words whatever reasons only means any “tangible material which would on application to the facts on record lead to reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has e…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…XMAN.COM 29 BOM Assessee issued debentures Rs.64 cr. to S who received unsecured loan, prima fascia from a shell co. No verification of tangible material received, amount to outsourcing reason to believe. Court held notice to be bad. SHODIMAN INVESTMENT P LTD 422 ITR 337 BOM Information were received from inv. wing as to search on one party who carried suspicious transaction, based on information notice was issued In para 11 the Court observed the words whatever reasons only means any “tangible material which would on application to the facts on record lead to reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has e…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…XMAN.COM 29 BOM Assessee issued debentures Rs.64 cr. to S who received unsecured loan, prima fascia from a shell co. No verification of tangible material received, amount to outsourcing reason to believe. Court held notice to be bad. SHODIMAN INVESTMENT P LTD 422 ITR 337 BOM Information were received from inv. wing as to search on one party who carried suspicious transaction, based on information notice was issued In para 11 the Court observed the words whatever reasons only means any “tangible material which would on application to the facts on record lead to reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has e…

Mrs. Deepal N Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

…- assessment proceedings merely on suspicion. The requirement of the law is reasons to believe and not reason to suspect. In support of his contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. 422 ITR 337 (Bom.). 3.1 The ld. AR submitted that on merits, the AO has made addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- merely on suspicion that the lender M/s Daksh Diamonds from whom the assessee had taken unsecured loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- during the Financial Year (FY) 2008-09 has provided accommodation entry. The reason for such suspicion is that the lending firm purport…