Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT & Others

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

…icating on the objections of the assessee prior to framing of reassessment order on merits. 11.1 In this regard the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), Siemens Information System Ltd. vs. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom), ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), Pr. CIT vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 415/2015) by Delhi High Court, CIT vs. M/s Trend Electronics (ITA No. 1867 of 2013) by Bombay High Court. 11.2 The Ld. counsel further submits that on merits the addition is not sustainable because of the following reasons: i. purchases are s…

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

…ii) CIT v Usha International (348 ITR 485)(Del)(FB) iii) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) 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/…

Epc Industries Ltd, Nashik vs. ACIT OSD 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2007-08) Epc Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Osd 10(1) Plot No.H-109, Midc Mumbai Ambad Nashik – 422010 Pan : Aaace2659J (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…merely because there is a change of opinion cannot be allowed. In our opinion, therefore, in the present case also, it was not permissible for respondent No. 1 to issue notice under section 148.” 14. In the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd. Vs. ACIT [295 ITR 333], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the assessing officer on the same set of facts had taken a view which was different from the views taken by the previous assessing officer on the interpretation of the same provision of law and therefore it is mere change of opinion which is not permissible. 15. In view of what is explained above, we are…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…sess the assessee on the ground of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The decisions of Bombay High Court in the cases of Asteroids Trading and Investments P Ltd, 308 ITR 190 (Bom), Siemens Information Systems Ltd, 295 ITR 333 (Bom) and Asian Paints Ltd, 308 ITR 195 (Bom) are also on similar lines where proceedings u/s 147 have been held to be invalid because re- opening was based on mere "change of opinion". In these decisions, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench), in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB) has been followed. The dec…

Concorde Motors (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh.Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The Acit, Circle-(Osd)-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacm 0154 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 04.10.2012 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Servicing & Maintenance Of Vehicles, Filed Its Return Of Income 05.01.2006, Declaring Total Income At Nil .The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 3.12.2008,Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.58,53, 770/-.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “ C ”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh.Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The ACIT, circle-(OSD)-2(1) 3rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma C…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…), IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. 7. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), Jet Airways India Ltd. 8. (2010)329 ITR 257 (Bom), 3I Infotech Ltd. 9. (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom), Rallis India Ltd. 10. (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 11. {2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom) Siemens Information System Ltd..v. ACIT The assessee company submitted that it had truly and fully disclosed all the materials while filing its return of income and during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, which material had been duly considered by the A.O. while framing the original assess…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…) It was also submitted that reassessment has been made mainly based on the audit observation which is not permitted in law. The assesse company also relied upon following case laws to support its contentions : i) Siemens Information Systems Limited v. ACIT 295 ITR 333(Bom.) ii) IL&FS Investment Managers Limited v. ITO 209 CTR 1 ITA 3078/Mum/2009 12 iii) Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 119 ITR 996(Bom.) iv) CGT v. Nabe Shah 279 ITR 383(All.) v) CIT v. Ambika Gwar Gum Mills 266 ITR 446(Raj.) The ld. CIT(A) after perusing the submission of the assessee company held that if the A.O. has reason to believe tha…

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

…rt of the assessee’s case:- (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 SC (ii) B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others vs. DDIT dated 20 August, 2011 (Uttarakhand High Court) (iii) Siemens Information System Ltd. vs. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom) (iv) ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) (v) Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. JCIT [2000]-243 ITR 540 (Gau.) (vi) Bawa Abhai Singh vs. Dy. CIT [2002]-253 ITR 83 (Del.) And ultimately, prayed for upholding the order of the first appellate authority which was perfect and as per law. 7. We have heard th…