“reopening of assessment”

Pritiben Vinodchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -23(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

grounds of appeal read as under : 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act was bad in law and invalid. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that ... proceeded to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Hence learned counsel submitted that not disposing of the objections against reopening of assessment is a jurisdictional defect in assessment order. Hence it should be treated as invalid and void ab initio. Further learned counsel submitted upon recording

ITO (Intl. Tax)- Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Philip Andrew Lobo, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

while ruling that as an order u/s. 147 Rws 143(3) was in existence at the time of reopening of assessment and no failure was on the part of the assessee the reopening was not correct. 7. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... that assessee has discharged its Onus to the extent possible (as the case is very old and it was the 3" round of reopening). The Assessing Officer, therefore, is directed to delete the addition of 44 lacs also. In effect the technical ground of reopening is as well as substantial

ITO Ward - 1(1), Kalyan vs. Shri Kantilal Kachara Gada, Bhiwandi

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 O/O Income Tax Officer, Shri Kantilal Kachara Ward – 1(1), Gada, 1St Floor, Flat No.A-202, Mohan Plaza, H. No.1164, Wayale Nagar, Vs. Green Acre Society, Kalyan West-421 301 Behind Oshwal Sagar Hall, Anjurphata, Bhiwandi - 421302 Pan: Ackps4697P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Further Ld. CIT(A) neither provided any documentary evidence on the basis of which AO established a reason to believe for reopening of assessment nor provided Cross Examination of the concern third party even after specifically requested by the appellant during the course of CIT(A) proceedings and also specifically

M/S Credence Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 414/मुं/2020 ("न.व 2010-11) M/S. Credence Developers, Shop No.11, Shree Ganesh Homes, Plot No.12, Sector-3, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai 400 701 Pan: Aadfc-9121-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3), Room No.327, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station, 3Rd Floor, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Aakash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022

three grounds. The ground No.1 is general in nature and, hence, requires no adjudication. In ground No.2 of appeal the assessee has assailed reopening of assessment. The ld. Authorized Representative stated at Bar that he is not pressing ground No.2. Hence, ground No.2 of the appeal is dismissed

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

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1676/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Translands Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.451, Aayakar Vs. Office No. A-702, 7Th Floor, Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Everest Nivara Infotech Park, Mumbai-400020. Plot No.D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0036B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 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. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Which Was Reopened By Ao On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction I.E. Merely On The Basis Of Information Received In Letter From Dy. Dit (Inv.) In Respect Of Search & Seizure U/S 132 Of The Act In The Case Of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt Without Application Of His Own Mind Before Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Reopened By Ao Without Taking The Requisite Approval From The Principal Commissioner U/S 151(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Recording The Satisfaction That It Is A Fit Case For Reopening On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded By The Ld Ao As No Exact Copy Of The Said Approval Has Been Given To The Appellant.

relevant to the A.Y.2012- 13. 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. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the reassessment u/s 147 which was reopened

Suprerior Financial Consultancy Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble&

ITA.No. 3113 & 3355/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2006-07) Superior Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., 6. With regard to ground raised by the assessee on reopening of assessment, at the time of hearing Ld. AR has not made any submissions, accordingly the ground relating to reopening is not adjudicated at this stage

Shri. Narayan Shivram Kotnis, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 26(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt Diva Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Narayan Shivram Kotnis V. Acit – 26(2) 301, Tejas Heights Room No. 510, 5Th Floor Trombay Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400022 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Abipk5022D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Paste Department By : Shri Kishore Dhule

before the hearing. 8. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee did not press the ground relating to reopening of assessment, accordingly, the issues relating to reopening is dismissed as not pressed and with regard to 6 Shri Narayan Shivram Kotnis penalty

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment”, for our consideration. While the stand of the Assessing Officer is that the time limit for reopening the assessments involving income escaping assessment in relation of any asset outside India is sixteen years from the end of the assessment year which is being ... will come into play only in respect of the cases which could have been reopened on 1st July 2012 anyway. Effectively, thus, the reopening of assessments, in respect of income relating to assets located outside India, within sixteen years from the end of the relevant assessment year has been held

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

assessment orders, appellate orders etc. were placed on record. 022. The learned Departmental Representative also stated that the assessee did not press the reopening of assessment Kirit Raojibhai Patel; AY 07-08 and the issue is already covered against the assessee on the merits of the case. 023. The learned

M/S. Meridian Gems, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

assessee filed its return of income on 27/10/2018, declaring a total loss of Rs.45,400. In the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment provided to the assessee, it was mentioned that the assessment in the case of Shri Bhawarlal Jain, was concluded from the assessment year