“reopening of assessment”

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Archive Realty Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit, Central Circle – 5(1) V. M/S. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor 324, Master Mind-Iv, Royal Palms Air India Building Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400065 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aagca5488D (Appellant) (Respondent)

merit. The 6 ITA NO. 456/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2008-09) & C.O. No. 180/Mum/2018 M/s. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Ld.CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment as the same was done on the basis of survey proceedings in which the department has come to know certain information concerning the share application money ... before the CIT(C)-III, Mumbai, by the ITO(Tech). It is the contention of the AR that the approval for reopening the assessment u/s 151(1) of the IT Act 1961 was granted by the CIT merely by way of putting a signature on the note sheet and hence

M/S. Sapphire Land Development P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee filed for AY 2011-12 and 2016-

Assessing Officer originally completed the assessment for this year under section 143(3) on 26.3.2014. Later he reopened the assessment by 2 M/s. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd. issuing notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act on noticing that a part of yatch expenses proposed to be disallowed ... hence he proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening of assessment and also confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal. 7. We heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We have

M/S. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee filed for AY 2011-12 and 2016-

Assessing Officer originally completed the assessment for this year under section 143(3) on 26.3.2014. Later he reopened the assessment by 2 M/s. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd. issuing notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act on noticing that a part of yatch expenses proposed to be disallowed ... hence he proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening of assessment and also confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal. 7. We heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We have

Sapphire Land Development P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee filed for AY 2011-12 and 2016-

Assessing Officer originally completed the assessment for this year under section 143(3) on 26.3.2014. Later he reopened the assessment by 2 M/s. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd. issuing notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act on noticing that a part of yatch expenses proposed to be disallowed ... hence he proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening of assessment and also confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal. 7. We heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We have

Lata Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(3) (3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2074/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Lata Holding Private Ltd. C/O. C.S.Anand,Advocate, 104, Pankaj Tower, 10 L.S.C Savita Vihar, Delhi – 110 092 Pan: Aaacl-2526-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Ward 12(3)(3)-Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri C.S.Anand ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( In Short ‘The Cit(A) ’) Dated 17/09/2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri C.S.Anand Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Order Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee. A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Would Show That The Cit(A) Issued Only Single Notice Of Hearing I.E. For Dated

further submitted that the assessee while filing appeal before the CIT(A) had only assailed additions on merits and the detailed grounds challenging reopening of assessment has been raised now in Second Appellate proceedings before the Tribunal. Detailed grounds were not raised before the CIT(A), although ground assailing reopening ... rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee in ground No.1 to 5 of the 3 appeal has assailed reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that although ground No.1

Jeevan Deep Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

opening of assessment and the same was supplied to it. The assessee also filed objections before the AO objecting to the reopening of assessment. It, inter alia, specifically submitted that the donations given to other charitable trusts are treated as “application of income” within the meaning ... make addition of Rs.2,02,00,000/-, which was considered as escapement of income in the reasons recorded by him for reopening of assessment. 3 Jeevan Deep Trust 3. The Learned CIT (Exemptions), upon examination of assessment record, took the view as under:- “The AO has passed order without

Rapaport India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Rapaport India Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 5(3)(1) 101, The Capital, Plot #C-70 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aabcr9998L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By Shri Prakash Mane

genuine and added to the income of the assessee. 3 M/s. Rapaport India Pvt. Ltd., 4. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the reopening of assessment and estimated the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases @8% of the alleged bogus purchases. Against this order, assessee is in appeal ... case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income of Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of learned assessing officer of reopening the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, when assessment was already completed under section 143(3) of the Income

M/S. Bharti Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(2) (1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Income Tax (Appeal) failed to note that the learned Assessing Officer merely relied on the information received from DGIT (Investigations), Mumbai to reopen the assessment and neither the assessment order nor the reasons communicated indicate that the Assessing officer had applied his mind to the issue and therefore the entire ... stated that the decision of the coordinate bench binds this bench. 012. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported orders of lower authority and submitted reopening of assessment is made based on information provided by investigation wing. On merits, he relied on the orders of lower authorities. 013. We have carefully considered

Late Shri Haresh A. Dhakan Through His Legal Heir Mr.Krunal H. Dhakan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyallate Shri Haresh A Dhakan Through His Legal Heir Mr. Krunal H. Dhakan, A-304, Classique Centre, Plot No. 26, Mahal Industrial Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aadpd5584B ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent

erred in law and on facts in stating in the appellate order that not supplying the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment do not make the assessment illegal and is only a procedural requirement . 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that ... reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment were never supplied to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that: - (i) Notice has been issued at the instance of the Investigation Wing and without independent application of mind. (ii) Notice

Rbi Employees Bhagwati Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer – 29(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

year 2011-12. 2. Grievances raised by the assessee appellant, as set out in the memorandum of appeal, are as follows: Ground I: Reopening of assessment bad in law 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') erred in confirming ... action of Income Tax Officer ("ITO") in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. 2. The Appellate prays that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is void ab- initio and/or otherwise bad-in-law. Ground II: Want of Natural Justice 1. On the facts

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suresh Gurubuxsing Wadhwa, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

addition of Rs.25 lakhs and also disallowance of interest of Rs. 22,192/ 9. The assessee has also challenged the validity of reopening of assessment, Since we have decided the issues urged on their merits in favour of the assessee, we do not find {t necessary to adjudicate the legal ... that if the revenue’s case was that the share applicants are bogus shareholders, then it was for the revenue to proceed by reopening of assessments of such shareholders and assessing them totax in accordance with the law and it would not entitle the revenue to add same in assessee

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

addition of Rs.25 lakhs and also disallowance of interest of Rs. 22,192/ 9. The assessee has also challenged the validity of reopening of assessment, Since we have decided the issues urged on their merits in favour of the assessee, we do not find {t necessary to adjudicate the legal ... that if the revenue’s case was that the share applicants are bogus shareholders, then it was for the revenue to proceed by reopening of assessments of such shareholders and assessing them totax in accordance with the law and it would not entitle the revenue to add same in assessee

ACIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (No Merged With Hdfc Bank Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

appeal of the revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the legal issue raised by the assessee against reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... completed on 09.03.2005. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act conveying his desire to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and thereafter framed re-assessment and made disallowance of Rs.3,11,02,103/- which was regarding deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia

Ambaji Resources & Credit P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

additional ground raised by the Appellant Assessee Company challenging the validity of the reassessment in absence of the basic ingredients required for reopening the assessment under the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing ... That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the legal ground against the jurisdiction of reopening the assessment when there was nothing recorded in the impugned assessment order that there was reasons to believe of escapement of income but on the other hand the Assessing Officer himself

Shree Ahuja Properties & Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -6 (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Shree Ahuja Vs. Dcit – Cc – 6(2) Properties & Developers Room No. 1903, 19Th A/201, Rajpipla, Opp Floor, Air India Bldg, Standard Chartered Nariman Point, Bank, Santacruz(W), Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400054. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefs2387M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 54 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A. Reopening of assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment without appreciating that ... Shree Ahuja Properties and Developers, Mumbai a) reopening of assessment was carried out on the basis of information from DDIT (Inv), Unit 5(4) as observed in the reasons recorded, however there is no such letter in the file as confirmed by the AO in the remand report, which itself

Bombay Real Estate Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1(1)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

return filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act and also requested for copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Assessing Officer vide letter dated 04/01/2016 provided the copy of reasons recorded while reopening the assessment in the case of assessee. The Assessing Officer ... learned AR further submitted that there is no new or tangible information/material for initiating the reassessment proceedings in the present case and thus reopening of assessment is bad in law as the same is based upon the change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. 10. On the other hand, Shri

Chouhan Builders India Housing Development P. L Td vs. Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalchouhan Builders India Housing Development P. Ltd. 104A, Sajid Tower, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaccc1839Q ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit -9(2)(1), R.No. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K. Shivram With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 31.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) 16 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Assessment Of The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.15,00,000/- As Against Loss Of Rs. 89,84,401.24 Returned By The Appellant. 2. Order Dt.31/05/19 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) As Well As Order Dt.27/12/18 Passed By Ld. Ao Were Bad In Law As The Same Were Not Based On Facts But Were Based On Assumptions Or Surmises Or Erroneous Findings & Has Not Considered Submissions Made By Appellant Or Authorities Cited By Appellant.

authorities cited by appellant. 2 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating ground No.2 that Reopening of assessment u/s 147 and issue of Notice u/s 148 of 1.T.Act was illegal, bad in law and therefore both reassessment proceedings as well as notice