“reassessment proceedings”

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

Mumbai about the source of the share capital allegedly received by the assessee company for giving the accommodation entries. 5. That the initiation of reassessment proceedings was without jurisdiction in as much as the same was based on assumption of incorrect facts that the assessee company raised share capital ... assessee, remand report and the findings of the assessing officer. The CIT(A) dealt on the additional ground of appeal on the validity of reassessment proceedings and the merits of the case and dismissed the grounds of appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal

Gautam Enterprises, Thane vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Gautam Enterprises Tax-1, Office No. 1B, 1St Floor, ‘B’ Wing, 6Th Floor, Shiv Krupa Chs Ltd, Ashar It Park Road 16Z, Vs. Charai, Thane, Wagle Ind Estate, Mumbai-400 601 Thane 400 604 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabfg0439L Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022

wherein it has been held that that when the order passed by the assessing officer was only an order dropping reassessment proceedings, time limit for exercise of commissioner’s power under section 263 must be computed with reference to original assessment order passed. He therefore stated that this decision ... 14th February, 2000. This assessment was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 15th of March 2002. Subsequently the reassessment proceedings, no addition was made and returned income was assessed. Subsequently, the Commissioner of income tax exercised power under Section

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

only in assessment years 2002–03, 2003-04 and 2004–05 addition on this issue was made by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the reassessment proceedings, which were ultimately set aside by the Tribunal. And, no addition has been made on this issue in assessment years

Mrs Mamta Sharad Gupta, Thane vs. The ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

notice u/s. 148 was illegal since the reasons recorded 2 Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta before issuing the same were baseless, and as such, the reassessment proceedings in pursuance thereof is vitiated. 2) The Ld. CIT (A] also failed to consider that the impugned order is passed mechanically ... Thus, there is relevant material for forming a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment and, therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act is in order. 10. In view of the above Rs. 4,00,000/- is added to the total

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:

partly allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. Since the appeal was decided on merits, therefore the legal issue of validity of reassessment proceedings are left open. 6. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.06.2022. (GAGAN

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. The Assessing Officer vide notice dated 23/03/2015 issued under section 148 of the Act initiated the reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee. In response to the said notice, assessee submitted that the return of income filed earlier be treated as return ... placed his submissions on the additional grounds of appeal challenging the legality of Bombay Real Estate Development Co. P. Ltd. ITA No.513/Mum./2021 reassessment proceedings in the present case. The learned AR submitted that impugned reassessment proceedings are based on the reappraisal of same set of facts which were already

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.

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 be quashed and the same be treated as null and void ab initio on following grounds: 3.1 Notice issued ... investigation wing, Mumbai. The AO had not conducted any independent enquiry either before issue of Notice u/s 148 of the Act or during reassessment proceedings, hence the AO has no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances

Kisan Agro Mart P. Ltd., Mira Road vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.936/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Kisan Agro Mart Private Limited, 604, A, Chandresh Arcade, Laxmi Park, Lodha Road, Mira Road (East) 401 107. Pan: Aaeck-0252F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -1, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

share to Shri Ramesh Jain and Shri Rishabh Jain. Both the aforesaid persons were directors and the only shareholder of the assessee company. In reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that the share capital of Rs.20,80,000/- and share premium of Rs.19,60,20,000/- introduced by the shareholders

Virendrakumar Vijayvargia, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the tact and circumstances of the case ... appeal of the assessee on merit, the ground raised by the assessee challenging the legality / validity of M/s. Sonam Gems Pvt. Ltd.,and others reassessment proceedings has been rendered academic and therefore we are not adjudicating the same and the same is left open. 9. Both the parties before

Sampatkumar S. Dadhich, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the tact and circumstances of the case ... appeal of the assessee on merit, the ground raised by the assessee challenging the legality / validity of M/s. Sonam Gems Pvt. Ltd.,and others reassessment proceedings has been rendered academic and therefore we are not adjudicating the same and the same is left open. 9. Both the parties before

Sonam Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the tact and circumstances of the case ... appeal of the assessee on merit, the ground raised by the assessee challenging the legality / validity of M/s. Sonam Gems Pvt. Ltd.,and others reassessment proceedings has been rendered academic and therefore we are not adjudicating the same and the same is left open. 9. Both the parties before

Gagan Chandaliya, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the tact and circumstances of the case ... appeal of the assessee on merit, the ground raised by the assessee challenging the legality / validity of M/s. Sonam Gems Pvt. Ltd.,and others reassessment proceedings has been rendered academic and therefore we are not adjudicating the same and the same is left open. 9. Both the parties before

Vilas Sadashiv Nalawade, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(5), Mumbai

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

capital gain was also taxed. The claim of 54F was declined. The learned CIT(A) has also declined the deduction on the ground that reassessment proceedings cannot be allowed to benefit the assessee, as these are meant for the benefit of the revenue. Reliance is placed on Hon’ble Supreme ... that section 147 cannot be so construed as to benefit the assessee, on the facts of this case, is incorrect inasmuch while, in the reassessment proceedings, it is indeed “not open to the assessee to seek review of items unconnected with the escapement of income for the purpose of computation

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice U/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed objections on the validity of reassessment proceedings and were disposed off. The assessee has filed the submissions on the disputed issue of bank account balances, but the A.O. was not satisfied with

Gian Chand Arora, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Pcit Gian Chand Arora Room No.1001, 10Th Floor, 101, 48 Nri Complex, Seawoods Estates Road, Pratishtha Bhavan, Sector 58, Seawoods, Old Cgo Annexe, Vs. Navi Mumbai, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 706 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Abgpa 9809 G Assessee By : Shri Ashok Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022

assessee claimed deduction in the return of income. Further, assessee can also claim eligible deductions from the escaped income in reassessment proceedings. The learned Assessing Officer also examined the details and allowed the claim. The learned PCIT did not suggest any further enquiries which are required to have been made ... learned Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings. Therefore, in our opinion explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act cannot be applied. Further, the learned PCIT also could not show how the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence

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

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. Shri Dilip J Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt9000H Appellant .. Respondent The Dcit, Vs. Smt Indira D. Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt3389E Appellant .. Respondent

970/Mum/2020 Shri Dilip Thakkar & Smit Indiar D Thakkar, Mumbai. the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings distinguishing the judicial decisions and supported the Order of the Assessing officer. Contra, the Ld. AR relied on the order ... case of the assessee. 6.4 Further, in the case of Soignee R. Kothari (supra) also the writ filed by the assessee against the reassessment proceedings was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on the ground that the assessee did not co-operate in giving consent waivers for obtaining copy