“reopening of assessment”

Asian Business Connections Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasian Business Connections Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 5(3), Fm-18 Mansarovar Complex No. 7 Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal Mumbai-400020 Madhya Pradesh - 462016

beneficiary. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped the Assesseement and after recording the reasons for reopening of assessment has issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. In- compliance to notice, the assessee has filed the return of income on 18.04.2019. Subsequently, notice

Mr. Ankit Girishkumar Vasani, Mumbai vs. ITO 35(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Income tax department, Ahmedabad that the assessee has obtained fictitious transactions to generate loss of Rs.1,24,17,318/-. Hence the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice 2 Ankit Girishkumar Vasani u/s 148 of the Act on 29-03-2016. The AO completed the assessment to the best ... Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that there is not reason to suspect the loss declared by the assessee and in any case, the reopening of assessment on the basis of suspicion is also bad in law as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. He also submitted

Sai Shipping Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment us 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.3.2019. In response to the above said notice, the assessee filed a letter dated 25.06.2019 requesting the AO to treat ... demand on the total income computed under normal provisions of the Act. 3. The assessee, inter alia, has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment before the Tribunal. We heard the parties first on this legal issue. 4. As noticed earlier, the original assessment in the hands of the assessee

Paramjit Singh Seehra, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Paramjit Singh Seehra Vs Acit-10(3)(1), Mumbai C-17/403, Bakul Off, 2Nd Pokhran Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Road, Vasant Vihar, Thane (West) Maharashtra-400 610 Pan : Aadps4447A Appellant Respondent

appeal are as follows:- “1. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in reopening of assessment that was completed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on the basis of statements recorded U/s. 132(4) by the DDIT ... money over and above the consideration of the sale agreement made by the assessee. The assessee’s allegation that the reopening of assessment was merely a borrowed satisfaction and not the Assessing Officer’s own satisfaction is negated by the Assessing Officer in his detailed order wherein based

Surplus Finvest P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-11, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

stock and providing bogus long term capital gain/short term capital gains. Copy of the reasons dated 22/03/2021, recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act was furnished during the course of hearing. Relevant portion of the aforesaid reasons is as under: “3.2 From ... necessary for its assessment for AY. 2015-16 within the meaning u/s 147 IT Act 1961. Therefore, this is a fit case for reopening of assessment.” 12. From the copy of assessment order dated 30/03/2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, furnished during the course

Tech Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir.-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

record order ITA. No. 3213/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 dated 17.03.2022 passed in ITA No. 6573/Mum/2019 whereby the Tribunal has held that the reopening of assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was invalid. He submitted that since the reopening of the assessment has been held to be invalid

M/S. Arshiya Rail Infrastucture Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.574/Mum./2021 “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 when no income has escaped assessment. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals-54 has erred in law and in fact ... escaped assessment, as assessee has failed to disclose truly and fully material facts. The assessee filed detailed objections against reopening of assessment, which were disposed off vide order dated 10/11/2019. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act seeking information about the aforesaid two entities

Smt Kiran Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Prin. Comm of Income Tax -27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhsmt. Kiran Anil Shah Vs. Pcit-27, 3Rd Floor, B-14, Plot No. R. No. 401, 4Th Floor, 33/34, Yogakshema Chs Tower No. 6, Vashi Ltd, Nathpai Nagar, Railway Station Ghatkopar- East, Commercial Complex, Mumbai – 400 077 Vavhi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Anrps9911N Appellant .. Respondent

have exercised revisional jurisdiction. The sum and substance of ratios laid down by Hon'ble High Courts is that if, reasons recorded for reopening of assessment on a particular issue and in reassessment proceedings, no addition is made on this count, then the Ld AO is debarred from making

Sureaksha DB Realty, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

escaped assessment, if on examination of the facts on record, it can be held that there was a prima facie belief, the reopening of assessment has to be held valid. Sufficiency of reasons cannot be questioned at the initial stage. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances explained above ... receipt of information. Therefore, he stated that the learned Assessing Officer does not have any information available with him but has merely reopened the assessment without any tangible material. He further submitted that there are discrepancies in information with respect to names of the parties as well as amount

Shariuzzaman Shamsuzzaman Shaikh, Mumbia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-26(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Shafuzzaman Shamsuzzaman Shaikh Shop No.2, Building No.2, Mubarak Complex, V.B. Nagar, Kurla (West),Mumbai-400070 Pan: Ayips7233B ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-26(3), C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B.K.C,. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

Income Tax Act, 1961. i) Proper approval of Pr. CIT is not furnished along with copy of the reasons for reopening during assessment nor during the appeal proceedings. ii) In spite of requisition by the Ld. C.I.T. (A), the Ld. Assessing Officer had not submitted his report in form ... response to notice u/s 148, notice u/s 143(2) was issued and copy of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment were also provided to the assessee. Assessee submitted details with reference to property transaction and bank transactions entered into by the assessee during

M/S. Manjudevi Chandanmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circle-20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

applicable to the facts of the instant case before us as it was rendered in the context of validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on information obtained in earlier scrutiny assessment year. We hold that the ld. AO on examination of all the details filed

The ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Aggrieved, the revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 19 Nitan Chhatwal 29. The assessee had challenged the validity of reopening of assessment before Ld CIT(A) on the ground that there was no material available with the AO for reopening the assessment. The Ld CIT(A) rejected the contentions ... assessee and upheld the validity of reopening of assessment. Hence the assessee has filed Cross objection challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. 30. Since the legal issue urged by the assessee goes to the root of the matter, we heard the parties first on the legal issue relating

ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Aggrieved, the revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 19 Nitan Chhatwal 29. The assessee had challenged the validity of reopening of assessment before Ld CIT(A) on the ground that there was no material available with the AO for reopening the assessment. The Ld CIT(A) rejected the contentions ... assessee and upheld the validity of reopening of assessment. Hence the assessee has filed Cross objection challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. 30. Since the legal issue urged by the assessee goes to the root of the matter, we heard the parties first on the legal issue relating