“reopening of assessment”

Shri Parasnath H Bharti, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

remind proceedings, the AO is justified in finazyling assessment proceedings based on the material available on record therefore Ground 1 and 2 regarding reopening of assessment are dismissed. The AR of the appellant objected to the addition made at 100% of purchases from Global Trade Impex

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd [Formerly Known As Sabmiller India Ltd], Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cirlce- 9 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., V. Acit – Circle – 9(1)(2) {Formerly Known As Sabmiller India Limited} Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor Unit No. 301-302, Third Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Mumbai - 400020 B-Wing, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaics2238R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

assessee submitted that assessee has raised specific grounds of appeal No.4, 6 and 8 before Ld.CIT(A) challenging the validity of reopening of assessment as bad in law raising several issues on this specific issue of reopening. 3 M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd., 4. He brought to our notice ... Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that assessee has raised several issues challenging the reopening of assessment before the Ld.CIT(A). However, Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated on the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee. We deem it fit and proper

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed quashing reopening of assessment and deleting addition on the merits

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Standard Chartered Bank The Dy. Director Of Income- Crescenzo, Tax(International Taxation)- 7Th Floor, C38-39, 2(1), Vs. G Block Bandra Kurla Complex , 1St Floor, Scindia House, Bandra East N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 038 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs4681D Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

Accordingly Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal are allowed. 21. In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed quashing reopening of assessment and deleting addition on the merits. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.01.2022 (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

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

assessee. Later, the assessment was sought to be reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 20/01/2014. Admittedly, this reopening of assessment was made beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The reasons recorded by the ld. AO for reopening ... take a divergent stand in respect of claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) of the Act for the dividend income and sought to reopen the assessment. Since, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on merits also, the reopening made

Ramchandra Dashrath & Co., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2002-03 Ramchandra Dashrath & Co. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- F-108, Apmc Fruit Market, Sector- Vs. 22(3), 19, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaffr 7250 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Aasifa Khan, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2022

regard from the appellant remained undisposed of by the ld. AO. 3) On the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act was illegal, invalid and contrary to the law. 4) On the facts circumstances of the case ... that Ground No. 2 is not pressed. The Ld. AR further submitted that it is clear from the reasons that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only on the ground that although the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was annulled by the Ld. CIT(A), however, the quantification

ITO 28 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vasant Purshottam Thakkar, Mumbai

Accordingly the cross objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Kurla". 03 Assessee filed a cross objection in CO number 12/MUM/2021 raising following grounds wherein challenge was made to reopening of the assessment:- Reopening of assessment is bad in law 1. The reopening of assessment vide notice u/s 148 dated 31/3/2016 was issued from wrong jurisdictional officer. Therefore, the notice ... assessee has purchased an immovable property at the cost of ₹ 36 lakhs. Therefore The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Gandhidham, recorded reasons for reopening of assessment on 30/3/2016 as under:- “Reasons For Reopening Of Assessment” Name and address of the assessee Shri Thakkar vasant Purushottam 501, Plot No 38, shambhu

Varad Vinayak Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (3)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

compliance to the notice under reference. 3. Your honour is requested to kindly issue the certificate copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 and approval obtained , if any for issuance of notice under reference to enable us to raise our objections earlier ... sought by the assessee vide their letter dated 22 January 2015. 12. Thereafter the assessee filed the objection two reasons for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the act along with providing the other information to the assessing officer vide the communication dated 25 February 2015 . In the said

Income Tax Officer 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E)

compliance to the notice under reference . 3. Your honour is requested to kindly issue the certificate copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 and approval obtained , if any for issuance of notice under reference to enable us to raise our objections earlier ... sought by the assessee vide their letter dated 22 January 2015. 12. Thereafter the assessee filed the objection two reasons for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the act along with providing the other information to the assessing officer vide the communication dated 25 February 2015 . In the said

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in finding that no infirmity in the action of Assessing Officer in reopening of assessment and passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, is held to be valid and as per law. The CIT(A) ignored ... June 2014, however, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148. When the assessee requisitioned the reasons for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer, vide letter dated 5th February 2016, has this to say:- 2. You have submitted vide letter dated 16.12.2015 stating thereby to treat

Mr. Tulsi C Bhimjyani, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 429/Mum/2020 (यनधाियण िषि / Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Tulsi C. Bhimjyani The Dy. Commissioner Of 301, A Wing, Fortune 2000, Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Bandra East, Vs. Mumbai-400 051 (अऩीऱाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabpb4740P अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से / Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr सुनिाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R प्रशाुंत महर्षि, ऱेखा सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of appeal of the assessee that the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act was void ab initio and illegal in view of the detailed submissions furnished by the assessee in the assessment ... already been concluded. The reason clearly shows that there is no tangible material found into the possession of the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment. Reading the reasons recorded, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened assessment on perusal of the same material which is available before

Sambhavanath Infrabuild Farms (Successor to Lodha Construction P. Ltd P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-7(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Cit– Central Circle – 7(3) {Successor To Lodha Construction Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aalcs1394M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act which is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances ... case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act without appreciating that the learned Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment based on the document found and seized during search action

M/S Jaybharat Textiles and Real Estate Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5(3), Mumbai

Bench: Sri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 1090/Mum/2020 (ननधधायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S Jaybharat Textiles & The Dy. Commissioner Of Real Estaet Ltd. Income Tax, 11/12, Raghuvanshi Mill Central Circle 5(3), R.No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Compound, बनाम/ Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Vs. Lower Parel (W), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai-400 021 (अऩीऱाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacj5959L अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय से / Respondent By : Shri Pinisetty Satya Prasanth, Dr सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.12.2021 घोर्णध की तधयीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Commissioner of Income Tax (AO), CC- 5, Mumbai [ the ld AO] was dismissed. The assessee has preferred the appeal challenging the reopening of assessment for issue of notice under section 143(3) of the Act in time and addition of Rs. 4,21,21,760/- under section