“reopening of assessment”

Virambhai Purshotamdas Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

have been narrated in my appellate order for AY 2007-08 in the appellant's own case while dealing with the basis for reopening of assessment. 6.7. It is noted from the orders in the case of Praveen Jain that there is no dearth of third party evidence and circumstantial ... basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT, CC-5(1) 19 reopening the assessment is not required any interference. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 4 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 7331,7339/Mum/2018 12. As the facts and the issue involved

Bhavesh Kumar Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

have been narrated in my appellate order for AY 2007-08 in the appellant's own case while dealing with the basis for reopening of assessment. 6.7. It is noted from the orders in the case of Praveen Jain that there is no dearth of third party evidence and circumstantial ... basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT, CC-5(1) 19 reopening the assessment is not required any interference. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 4 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 7331,7339/Mum/2018 12. As the facts and the issue involved

Govindbhai Tribhuvandas Patel, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

have been narrated in my appellate order for AY 2007-08 in the appellant's own case while dealing with the basis for reopening of assessment. 6.7. It is noted from the orders in the case of Praveen Jain that there is no dearth of third party evidence and circumstantial ... basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT, CC-5(1) 19 reopening the assessment is not required any interference. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 4 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 7331,7339/Mum/2018 12. As the facts and the issue involved

Alkesh Patel (Prop. of M/S Umiya Gems), Mumbai vs. Income Tax 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

have been narrated in my appellate order for AY 2007-08 in the appellant's own case while dealing with the basis for reopening of assessment. 6.7. It is noted from the orders in the case of Praveen Jain that there is no dearth of third party evidence and circumstantial ... basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT, CC-5(1) 19 reopening the assessment is not required any interference. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 4 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 7331,7339/Mum/2018 12. As the facts and the issue involved

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Jogia Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.468 /Mum/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) Dcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S Vedisa Properties R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Limited, 324, Air India Building, Master Mind- Iv, Royal Nariman Point, Palms, Aarey Milk Colony Mumbai – 400 021 Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 065 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcv3199B Respondent .. Appellant

issue and identical fact, therefore both the C.O. are adjudicated together. 8. Vide the cross objection the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. In ground No. 2 of Cross Objection the assessee contended that notice issued

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Vedisa Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.468 /Mum/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) Dcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S Vedisa Properties R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Limited, 324, Air India Building, Master Mind- Iv, Royal Nariman Point, Palms, Aarey Milk Colony Mumbai – 400 021 Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 065 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcv3199B Respondent .. Appellant

issue and identical fact, therefore both the C.O. are adjudicated together. 8. Vide the cross objection the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. In ground No. 2 of Cross Objection the assessee contended that notice issued

Sss Sai Shipping Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Sss Sai Shipping Dy. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-1(3)(1), A-304, Classique Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot Number-26, Vs. Annex, Mahal Industrial Estate, Maharshi Karve Marg, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aalcs4908D (Appellant) (Respondent)

relief to the assessee by deleting the addition made in the hands of the assessee but decided the legal issue as to the reopening of assessment against the assessee against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Operative part of the impugned order passed ... have not been challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. 8. Assessee by filing present appeal has merely challenged the reopening of assessment initiated by the AO under section 147 of the Act on the basis of pen drive data and statement of Shri Haresh 5 M/s. SSS Sai Shipping

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

sought to be reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 20/01/2005 after recording the reasons for M/s. Tata Motors Ltd reopening the assessment. For the sake of convenience the reasons recorded by the ld. AO as furnished to the assessee are as under:- “2. As requested ... roving enquiries which is not permissible u/s.147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the plea of the assessee and confirmed the reopening of assessment made u/s.147 of the Act. However, in respect of various disallowances made on merits, the ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

sought to be reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 20/01/2005 after recording the reasons for M/s. Tata Motors Ltd reopening the assessment. For the sake of convenience the reasons recorded by the ld. AO as furnished to the assessee are as under:- “2. As requested ... roving enquiries which is not permissible u/s.147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the plea of the assessee and confirmed the reopening of assessment made u/s.147 of the Act. However, in respect of various disallowances made on merits, the ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee

The Pr. CIT Mumbai City-19, Mumbai vs. Shri Champaklal M. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

that reopening by the AO is not valid. The arguments of the appellant in this regard are as under- a. The AO has reopened the assessment under the belief that appellant has not filed ROI for A.Y. 2011-12 whereas the appellant vide his letter dated 03.08.2015 has informed ... filed his ROI on 21.07.2011. b. The appellant vide his letter dated 30.10.2018 has pointed out various judicial pronouncements as per which the reopening of assessment in this case is invalid as the same has been made without application of mind on the basis of reason to suspect

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result of the Revenue Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1722/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Comm Of Income M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Tax Central Circle Ltd Mumbai 5(1) Mumbai 3Rdfloor, Titanic Bldg, बिधम/ Room No.1928, Chandivali Farm Road, Vs. 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Malegaon, Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra 400072 Maharashtra,400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ : Shri Madhur Agarwal Appellant By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri. Manoj Sinha, Sr.Ar. By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order u/s.147 by holding that the reopening of assessment proceedings were merely on the basis of information provided by the investigation wing without appreciating that there is nexus between the information available ... Since during the course of the assessment preceding the claim of the assessee has been accepted by the Ld. AO, therefore, reopening the assessment on the same issue leads to mere "change of opinion". Accordingly, it was stated that all the income were duly reported in the ITR and there

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Deval D Thakkar [Now Known As Smt Deval E Anthony], Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

disclosed the same, according to AO it has A.Ys.1999-2000 & 2004-05 Deval D. Thakkar escaped assessment. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment mainly for the following reasons as under: - “Smt Deval E Anthony who is having account in HSBC as Beneficial owner/ beneficiary of Chhaganlal Suchak Family ... been furnished by the assessee.” A.Ys.1999-2000 & 2004-05 Deval D. Thakkar 6. Based on the aforesaid reason the AO reopened the assessment and for doing so he took the aid of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act which reads as under:- “Time Limit for notice

Aakash Films Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -50, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

allegation that advances booked by the assessee are bogus is just on the basis of a statement by third party. 4. Reopening of assessment cannot be made with an intention to review. 5. In the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, the appellant had disclosed ... part of the assessee to disclose the primary material facts. Thus, the exceptional power which is conferred upon the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment has not been lawfully exercised by him in the present case. 6. The Ld. AO must personally have the information in his possession, he personally

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment despite the issue of unsecured loans and interest expense was already examined during the original scrutiny assessment and thus the reopening was nothing but a change ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment despite the issue of unsecured loans and interest expense was already examined during the original scrutiny assessment and thus the reopening was nothing but a change

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment despite the issue of unsecured loans and interest expense was already examined during the original scrutiny assessment and thus the reopening was nothing but a change ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment despite the issue of unsecured loans and interest expense was already examined during the original scrutiny assessment and thus the reopening was nothing but a change