“reassessment proceedings”

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

assessee before making the assessment. 16. It is submitted that this is against the rule of natural justice and therefore the entire reassessment proceedings require to be held as null and void. Page 179 182 of paper book. 17. It was also incumbent upon AO to independently apply his mind ... foreign assets have not been sourced from income arising/ accruing in India. The A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated to undertake a fishing enquiry, especially when there is absolutely no material on record to even suggest that income chargeable

ITO -19(2) (4), Mumbai vs. Shri Prakash Chandra Surajmal Gandhi, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2272/मुं/2021 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(4), Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Prakash Chandra Surajmal Gandhi, 41, Ashutosh Co-Op Society, 38A, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aacpg-9520-B ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Beena Santosh ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri A.K. Vaidyalingan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश/ Order 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 05/10/2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue Is In Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.27,31,200/- On Account Of Sale Consideration Received On Sale Of Shares Of Action Financial Services Limited. The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of The Entire Sale Consideration Of Shares As Unexplained Income Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’].

purchase of shares. It is only the sale of shares which has been doubted by the Assessing Officer . The Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings made addition of the entire sale proceeds under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/12/2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

Dy CIT, CC-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we hold that the reasons for reopening the assessment were unsustainable in law. The impugned reassessment proceedings must stand quashed for this short reason alone. As we have quashed the reassessment proceedings for this short reason, we see no need

Dy CIT, CC-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we hold that the reasons for reopening the assessment were unsustainable in law. The impugned reassessment proceedings must stand quashed for this short reason alone. As we have quashed the reassessment proceedings for this short reason, we see no need

Ashok Jasraj Jain, HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

proceedings were issued and notices for completing scrutiny proceedings were issued and notices for completing scrutiny proceedings were issued and complied with. In the reassessment proceedings order complied with. In the reassessment proceedings order complied with. In the reassessment proceedings order under section 147 read with section ... support of additional round raised challenging the validity of 54 in support of additional round raised challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. the reassessment proceedings. 6. In respect of additional In respect of additional ground raised, the Ld. Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the assessee referred

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred, on facts and in law in dismissing the legal ground taken before him regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. A.O. by issue of Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when basic ingredients required for reopening ... under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963 was taken on record and the present appeal was heard on the aforesaid jurisdictional ground challenging the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Satya Securities Ltd. ITA No.6670/Mum./20116 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

Suraj Manohar Samat, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sought to examine the veracity of receipt of unsecured loan of Rs. 21,00,000/- by the assessee from M/s. Kunal Gems in the reassessment proceedings. The assessee furnished the confirmation from M/s. Kunal Gems, bank statements of M/s. Kunal Gems which prove sufficient credit worthiness for M/s. Kunal Gems

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on 19/03/2018 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31/03/2018. 29. During reassessment proceedings, on questioned by the Assessing Officer regarding operating of the benami bank accounts, the assessee submitted that he was only looking after the income

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on 19/03/2018 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31/03/2018. 29. During reassessment proceedings, on questioned by the Assessing Officer regarding operating of the benami bank accounts, the assessee submitted that he was only looking after the income

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Jogia Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 147 are not satisfied. The appellant prays that the notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and consequently the order passed in reassessment proceedings may be cancelled. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that on the same set of facts which were ... facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that the Lower Authorities have rejected the objection raised by the appellant in the reassessment proceedings without dealing with the issues raised therein. The appellant prays that the reassessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer may be set aside

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Jogia Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 147 are not satisfied. The appellant prays that the notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and consequently the order passed in reassessment proceedings may be cancelled. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that on the same set of facts which were ... facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that the Lower Authorities have rejected the objection raised by the appellant in the reassessment proceedings without dealing with the issues raised therein. The appellant prays that the reassessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer may be set aside

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Vedisa Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 147 are not satisfied. The appellant prays that the notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and consequently the order passed in reassessment proceedings may be cancelled. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that on the same set of facts which were ... facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that the Lower Authorities have rejected the objection raised by the appellant in the reassessment proceedings without dealing with the issues raised therein. The appellant prays that the reassessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer may be set aside

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Vedisa Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 147 are not satisfied. The appellant prays that the notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and consequently the order passed in reassessment proceedings may be cancelled. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that on the same set of facts which were ... facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that the Lower Authorities have rejected the objection raised by the appellant in the reassessment proceedings without dealing with the issues raised therein. The appellant prays that the reassessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer may be set aside

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

that case, the regular assessment u/s 143(3) was passed which was followed by an order u/s 147 / 143(3). The reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated with reference to 3 specific issues. In the order passed u/s 147/143(3) the addition was made in respect

Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Us Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of, Inter Alia, The Construction & Development Of Integrated Townships. The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 12Th December 2011 At A Total Income Of Rs 42,18,260. However, As A Result Of Search Operations Having Been Carried Out By The Income Tax Department On The Assessee & Its Associated Persons & Group Enterprises, The Assessee Was Called Upon To File A Fresh Return Under Section 153A, Which Was

obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent to reopen