“reassessment proceedings”

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 147 of the Act. Pursuant to the request by the assessee, the Assessing Officer provided a copy of the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings, which reads as under: Goldiam Jewellery Ltd. ITA No.728 and 729/Mum./2021 “3. As per the reasons recorded for the purpose of initiating proceedings ... Accordingly, the AO was convinced and satisfying that this was a fit case for reopening of assessment proceedings.” 7. During the reassessment proceedings, in response to the notices issued under section 143 (2) of the Act, assessee filed documents vide letters dated 18/12/2015, 18/02/2016 and 06/03/2016 in respect

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 147 of the Act. Pursuant to the request by the assessee, the Assessing Officer provided a copy of the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings, which reads as under: Goldiam Jewellery Ltd. ITA No.728 and 729/Mum./2021 “3. As per the reasons recorded for the purpose of initiating proceedings ... Accordingly, the AO was convinced and satisfying that this was a fit case for reopening of assessment proceedings.” 7. During the reassessment proceedings, in response to the notices issued under section 143 (2) of the Act, assessee filed documents vide letters dated 18/12/2015, 18/02/2016 and 06/03/2016 in respect

Assistant Comm of Income Tax 24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Airpac Laminar, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

validity of reassessment framed in the hands of the assessee is not in dispute. The learned Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings called for following documents from the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases in the sum of Rs. 10,07,746/- :- i) Copy of ledger account ii) Copy

Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(2) (5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain, Income Tax Officer, 18(2)(5), Office No. 6, Jewel Co-Op. Earnest House, Ncpa Marg, Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, 44/46, Vs. Nariman Point, Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 003 Pan No. Aacpj 5627 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022

Jain 4 taken accommodation entry for purchase of ₹1,09,08,202/- from the entry provider namely “M/s Lahree Impex”. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to M/s Lahree Impex, however notices were returned by the postal authorities with

Bombay Marine Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO WD 3(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Ito, Bombay Marine Engineering Ward 3(1)(2) Works Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 5B Bakhtawar, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacb0451F Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Chotani, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.G. Mehta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

make full and true disclosure of particulars of income in the original assessment proceedings. 06. Hence, we have no hesitation in quashing the reassessment proceedings as void abinitio. Accordingly, the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 07. Since reopening is quashed, the other grounds raised by the assessee

ITO 13 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Samriddhi Finvest Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhito-13(2)(1) Vs. M/S Samriddhi Finvest Room No. 147, 1 St Floor, Advisory Services Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, May Road, Mumbai – 400020 Building, 297/299/301, Princess Sreet, Near Marine Lines Flyover, Mumbai - 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccd9469K Appellant .. Respondent

Shri Ashwin Sheth, director of M/s Sheth Developer Pvt. Ltd. in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceeding the A.O issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act to M/s Sheth Developer Pvt. Ltd. regarding detail of cash received from ... other hand, the ld. counsel has vehemently contended that A.O neither provided the copy of statement nor given any opportunity of cross examination in reassessment proceedings. The assessee has produced document before the A.O as evidence of making only cheque payment. The ld. Counsel also referred the letter dated

Rrc International Freight Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4758/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Rrc International बिधम/ Acit Circle-1(3)(1) Freight Services Ltd. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Great Social Building, 2Nd Bhavan, M. K. Road, Floor, 60, Sir P.M. Road Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr3533J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri M. P. Ahuja (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai Dated 19.04.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None- Appeared For The Assessee Despite Notices Being Served Upon It & The Mater Being Listed Nineteens (19) Times Before & The Matter Is Pending From 2017 Onwards & No Adjournment Application Has Been Brought To Our Notice, So We Are Inclined To Decide The Appeal Ex-Parte Qua Assessee. 3. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Holding It As Valid In Law Thereby Dismissing The Legal Issue Raised By Assessee Challenging Its Validity.

disclosed all the facts truly and fully at the time of original assessment. Thus initiation of reassessment proceedings beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is not justified. The issue of notice by the ld. AO for the purpose of reassessment

Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Had Filed A Condonation Petition Together With His Affidavit & Also An Affidavit From The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee Narrating The Facts & Explaining The Reasons For Delay. We Have Gone Through Those Documents & We Are Convinced That Assessee Was Prevented From Reasonable Cause In Not Filing The Appeal Before Us Within The Prescribed Time. Hence, We Deem It Fit & Appropriate To Condone The Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Assessee & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

held to be expenditure not related to the business of the assessee and considered as undisclosed income for the block period. In the reassessment proceedings under section 148, very same amount was added on a protective basis. When the Assessing Officer made aforesaid addition in the reassessment proceedings under section ... already deleted by learned CIT(A). The appeal of the revenue before the Tribunal was pending. The Assessing Officer while making addition in the reassessment proceedings under section 148 had observed that the addition was being made on protective measure. It is in the aforesaid background of fact, question

Jazan Agro Tex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Jazan Agro Tex Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd., 1(2)(1), 701, Emerald Esley 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Royal Palm Arey Milk Vs. M.K. Road, Colony, New Marine Lines, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Aaccj1127G (Appellant) (Respondent)

illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 2. REASSESSMENT The A.O. erred in initiating reassessment proceedings and framed assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 3. BEST JUDGMENT

Advance Technoloies Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

disposing of the objections to the reasons recorded. 5. That the reassessment order passed by Ld. AO is also illegal because of initiating of reassessment proceedings only on borrowed information. 6. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law in making addition of Rs. 84,22,139/- to the income ... reopening of assessment within a reasonable time and non- disposal of objections to reopening the assessment within a reasonable time was fatal to the reassessment proceedings. It was also claimed that the reassessment was being done on the basis of borrowed satisfaction-something which is legally impermissible. The assessee also