“reopening of assessment”

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

arrived at assumption of escapement of income and that there is no reason to believe on part of the AO to reopen the assessment without appreciating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment and that the case was validly reopened. (iv). Whether ... associates. As the above associate M/s. Phulchand Exports Pvt.Ltd. is assessed in your charge, necessary action may be taken in its hands by reopening the assessment for the A.Ys.2008-09. In the case of M/s.PEC, the assessment has already been re-opened. A copy of report of Justice

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

arrived at assumption of escapement of income and that there is no reason to believe on part of the AO to reopen the assessment without appreciating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment and that the case was validly reopened. (iv). Whether ... associates. As the above associate M/s. Phulchand Exports Pvt.Ltd. is assessed in your charge, necessary action may be taken in its hands by reopening the assessment for the A.Ys.2008-09. In the case of M/s.PEC, the assessment has already been re-opened. A copy of report of Justice

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

arrived at assumption of escapement of income and that there is no reason to believe on part of the AO to reopen the assessment without appreciating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment and that the case was validly reopened. (iv). Whether ... associates. As the above associate M/s. Phulchand Exports Pvt.Ltd. is assessed in your charge, necessary action may be taken in its hands by reopening the assessment for the A.Ys.2008-09. In the case of M/s.PEC, the assessment has already been re-opened. A copy of report of Justice

Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming A.0's action of reopening the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in holding ... year under consideration. 9. Vide letter dated 08/06/2016, the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment provided by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 14/06/2016, which is forming part of the paper book

The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Joint Lessees Of Vs. Ito – 20(2)(1), Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Ii Floor,Lalbaug, Lalbaug Industrial Mumbai – 400012 Estate, Dr B.A. Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 20(2)(1) Vs. The Joint Lessees Of Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Ii Floor,Lalbaug, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Mumbai – 400012 Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Dr B.A.Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant /Respondent By Shri G.P Mehta.Ar : Respondent/Appellant By Shri T. Shankar.Dr : Date Of Hearing 11.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

reasons and purely relied on the findings of the other assessing officer. The Ld. AR has demonstrated the reasons recorded for the reopening of assessment at page 9 of the paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an AOP and has filed the return of income

Dy CIT CC 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S R S Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc – 4(1) Vs. M/S. R.S. Associates Room No. 1918, Commerz, 3Rd Floor, 19Th Floor, Air India Business Park, Bldg, Nariman Point, Oberoi Gardens City, Mumbai – 400 021. Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent M/S. R.S. Associates Vs. Dcit, Cc – 4(1) Commersz,3Rd Floor, Room No. 1918, Business Park, 19Th Floor, Air India Oberoi Gardens City, Bldg, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent Assesse By : Mr.Vijay Mehta.Ar Revenue By : Mr.T.Sankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of

compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The A.O. provided copy of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment refered at page 2 of the order, read as under: Excess claim of Work-in-Progress On review of records, it/s observed that the assessee had taken up a project ... fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the year under consideration." 4. The assessee has filed the objections for reopening of assessment and the A.O has disposed off the same by office letter dated 14.07.2016.Subsequently, notice

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkuar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2481/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

Objection of the assessee i.e. C.O No.178/Mum/2018 arising out of ITA No.4174/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 28/02/2019 has held reopening of assessment 3 under section 147 of the Act as invalid. Once the reassessment is held to be invalid, the addition does not survive. Hence, there

ACIT -17 (1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2479/मुं/2021("न.व.2009-10) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

Objection of the assessee i.e. C.O No.176/Mum/2018 arising out of ITA No.4172/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 28/02/2019 has held reopening of assessment under section 147 of the 3 Act as invalid. Once the reassessment is held to be invalid, the addition does not survive. Hence, there

ACIT- 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2480/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of 2 Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

Objection of the assessee i.e. C.O No.177/Mum/2018 arising out of ITA No.4173/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 28/02/2019 has held reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act as invalid. Once the reassessment is held to be invalid, the addition does not survive. Hence, there

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Om Reality P. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Jt. Commissioner Of M/S. Om Realty Private Income Tax (Osd), Limited, Cen. Circle-3(1), 205, Om Chambers, Room No.1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Om Kroner, Air India Building, 123, A.K. Marg, Nariman Point, Kempscorner, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 036 Pan: Aaaco2564L (Appellant) (Respondent)

factually incorrect since no property was sold during the year under consideration as alleged by the Assessing Officer in his reasons recorded for reopening of Assessment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law erred in holding that the reassessment order passed by Assessing

Mr Pravin Bhanwarlal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

stating that return already filed may be treated as a return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment were duly furnished to the assessee. The assessee filed preliminary objections vide letter dated 28/07/2015 and the said objections were disposed ... speaking order by the ld. AO dated 28/05/2015. The assessee again filed yet another letter dated 14/09/2015 objecting to reopening of assessment. The same was also disposed of by way of speaking order by the ld. AO vide order dated 29/01/2016. Hence, the entire legal procedure that were contemplated

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

creditor; (ii) Creditworthiness of the creditor; and ill) Genuineness of the transaction. “5.3 It is imperative to mention here the background of reopening of assessment in the present case before proceeding further. A search & survey action was carried out in the case of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah at the residence

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemetal Tubes & Rolling Mills V. Income Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) 1St Floor, Metal Tube & Rolling Mills Mumbai Marol Maroshi Road, Marol Village Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaefm9353N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshawala & Shri D.B. Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) 39 has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Learned Assessing Officer, Ward 24(2)(5), Mumbai, as valid. 2. On the facts ... same time the respective CIT/Addl.CIT has to verify the assessment record and record the satisfaction for the purpose of granting permission to reopen the assessment. As held in several cases the reopening cannot be done on mechanical basis, it undermines the procedures laid down by the legislature. We observe from

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

valid “reasons to believe” is no longer a matter of debate. So long as the law declared in Kelvinator (supra) stands, a valid reopening of assessment has to be based only on tangible material to justify the conclusion that there is escapement of income. In the present case the note ... compete agreement. The reasons for the notice under section 147 nowhere mentioned that the revenue came up with any other fresh material warranting reopening of assessment. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that mere conclusion of the proceedings under section 143(1) ipso facto does not bring

Areen Consultants P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

Assessee and reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated on 28.02.2013. The Appellant requested for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment which were provided to the Appellant. The Appellant, on 13.01.2014, filed objections to reopening of assessment which were disposed off by the Assessing Officer vide order

The Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Cit-15(3)(1) M/S. Translands Infrastructure Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Developers P. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Jn-3, 14-15, Aashirward Chs, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703

referred above by as order as under: 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the reassessment u/s 147 which was reopened

Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

that no addition has been made with respect to the reasons recorded (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Ravi Nirman Nigam Limited for reopening of assessment, as such, the reassessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. Your appellant craves leave to add to, amend ... appeal which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the department has erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act without appreciating the fact that information was received from the office of the ACII, Central Circle - 2(4) in connection

Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

that no addition has been made with respect to the reasons recorded (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Ravi Nirman Nigam Limited for reopening of assessment, as such, the reassessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. Your appellant craves leave to add to, amend ... appeal which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the department has erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act without appreciating the fact that information was received from the office of the ACII, Central Circle - 2(4) in connection

Praham India LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 31, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepraham India Llp V. Pr. Cit – 31 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Patel Estate, Off. Sv Road Bandra Kurla Complex Jogeshwari (W) Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai - 400102 Pan: Aamfp3204H (Appellant) (Respondent)

order cannot be held to be erroneous if at all revenue intend to initiate proceedings they can 7 Praham India LLP initiate on reopening of assessment or any other method but not under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, in our view the order passed u/s.263

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

through the contents and then he formed an independent opinion and after satisfying himself had recorded the reasons for reopening. 2.2 After reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.40 lakhs received by the assessee from various corporate entities. Addition