“reassessment proceedings”

Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(1), D-31, Star Apartment, S.V. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Borivali (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Tax-12(2)(1), 31, Star Apartment, S.V. Road, Borivali Room No. 128E, 1St Floor, Vs. West, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that initiation of the reassessment proceedings us 147 of the Act is without satisfying the statutory preconditions as envisaged us 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings itself ... Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that learned A has initiated the reassessment proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction

Flair Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground of appeal No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Flair Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(2), 4Th Floor, Chawda Commercial Mumbai-400020. Centre, Chincholi Bunder Road, Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aabcf 1094 P Appellant Respondent

Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that initiation of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is without satisfying the statutory preconditions as envisaged w/ 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings itself ... Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that learned AO has initiated the reassessment proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction

The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Joint Lessees Of Vs. Ito – 20(2)(1), Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Ii Floor,Lalbaug, Lalbaug Industrial Mumbai – 400012 Estate, Dr B.A. Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 20(2)(1) Vs. The Joint Lessees Of Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Ii Floor,Lalbaug, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Mumbai – 400012 Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Dr B.A.Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant /Respondent By Shri G.P Mehta.Ar : Respondent/Appellant By Shri T. Shankar.Dr : Date Of Hearing 11.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act. In the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings, being the legal & jurisdictional issue. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The orders passed by the learned lower authorities ... time and submitted the details as called for and the case was discussed. The assessee has filed the objections on the initiation of reassessment proceedings vide letter dated 13.02.2015 and the ITA No. 2797 & 3203/Mum/2016 The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai. reply to the objections was provided

Dy CIT CC 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S R S Associates, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc – 4(1) Vs. M/S. R.S. Associates Room No. 1918, Commerz, 3Rd Floor, 19Th Floor, Air India Business Park, Bldg, Nariman Point, Oberoi Gardens City, Mumbai – 400 021. Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent M/S. R.S. Associates Vs. Dcit, Cc – 4(1) Commersz,3Rd Floor, Room No. 1918, Business Park, 19Th Floor, Air India Oberoi Gardens City, Bldg, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent Assesse By : Mr.Vijay Mehta.Ar Revenue By : Mr.T.Sankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of

r.w.s 143 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In ITA No. 1349/Mum/2020 the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings, being the legal & jurisdictional issue. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld. AO has erred in law and facts in issuing ... Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR has submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the validity of reassessment proceedings as the assessment was reopened on the wrong assumption of facts and relying on the same set of material which was available with

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

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

resident Indian and has filed return of income, for the year under consideration, on 31/10/2007 declaring total income of Rs. 79,36,613. The reassessment proceedings were initiated, in the case of the assessee, vide notice dated 31/10/2014 issued under 148 of the Act, on the basis of information received ... considered by the assessee in his return of income and therefore, this income has escaped assessment. The assessee objected to the initiation of reassessment proceedings, which were disposed of by the Assessing Officer. Vide order dated 31/03/2015 passed under section 143 (3) read with section

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkuar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2481/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: 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 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The addition of Rs.41,57,384/- was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated ... under section 271(1)(c) of the Act . At the outset it is observed that Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act invalid, wherein the addition on account of bogus purchases were made in the hands of assessee. Once

ACIT -17 (1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2479/मुं/2021("न.व.2009-10) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: 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 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The addition of Rs.68,78,286/- was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of boguspurchases. Consequent to the addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 12/03/2019 ... under section 271(1)(c) of the Act . At the outset it is observed that Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act as invalid, wherein the addition on account of bogus purchases were made in the hands of assessee. Once

ACIT- 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2480/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: 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 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of 2 Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The addition of Rs.38,20,519/- was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated ... under section 271(1)(c) of the Act . At the outset it is observed that Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act as invalid, wherein addition on account of bogus purchases were made in the hands of assessee. Once

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. The DCIT 15(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

Panel (DRP in short) u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 22/03/2021 for the A.Y.2011-12. 2. We find that assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings vide ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.3 before us. 2 M/s. Strides Pharma Science Ltd., 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemetal Tubes & Rolling Mills V. Income Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) 1St Floor, Metal Tube & Rolling Mills Mumbai Marol Maroshi Road, Marol Village Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaefm9353N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshawala & Shri D.B. Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

accorded sanction under section 151(1) after applying his mind and after recording his satisfaction. [Para 7] 15 Metal Tubes & Rolling Mills Therefore, reassessment proceedings were bad in law and consequently the assessment was void ab initio. [Para 9]” 14. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

each other. 1. On the facts and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘CIT(A)’] erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) initiated after four years from the end of relevant assessment year, without appreciating ... wrong. Hence, it is clear that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon mere change of opinion.” 6 (e) The aforesaid decision in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court

Areen Consultants P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

dated 30.11.2010, at the total loss of INR 90,69,955/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee and reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated on 28.02.2013. The Appellant requested for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment which were provided ... based on annual letting value of 2% of the investment.” 5. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the Appellant appearing before us contended that the reassessment proceedings are liable to be set 2 ITA. No. 3544/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 aside on the issue of jurisdiction as well on merits

Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

passing. the re-assessment order u/s 147, despite the fact that no addition had been made on the alleged reasons and as such, the reassessment proceedings ought to have been dropped. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred ... taxmann.com 159 • Rajat Saurabh Chatterji v. ACIT ITA No. 2430/DeV2015 - Delhi ITAT There is no reason to believe with the AO: Without prejudice, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law as there is material with the AO to form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment: (A.Ys

Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

passing. the re-assessment order u/s 147, despite the fact that no addition had been made on the alleged reasons and as such, the reassessment proceedings ought to have been dropped. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred ... taxmann.com 159 • Rajat Saurabh Chatterji v. ACIT ITA No. 2430/DeV2015 - Delhi ITAT There is no reason to believe with the AO: Without prejudice, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law as there is material with the AO to form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment: (A.Ys

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Securities Pvt. Ltd., 4. Assessee is engaged in the business of construction of property. Subsequently assessee raised various objections in respect of the reassessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer disposed off the objections raised by the assessee and the Assessing Officer after rejecting the submissions of the assessee proceeded

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

Securities Pvt. Ltd., 4. Assessee is engaged in the business of construction of property. Subsequently assessee raised various objections in respect of the reassessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer disposed off the objections raised by the assessee and the Assessing Officer after rejecting the submissions of the assessee proceeded

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

stand of the assessee has been that the reasons recorded did not whisper about any tangible material which triggered reopening u/s 147. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) without recording Assessing Officer's own satisfaction and the information

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

issues raised by learned PCIT was required, it had to be done at the time of the original assessment proceedings and not during the reassessment proceedings. Thus, he 5 A.Y. 2010-11 submitted, there being no error in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s ... reopening of assessment as contemplated under section 147 of the Act is for the specific purpose of assessing the escaped income. Therefore, in a reassessment proceeding, the assessing officer can only assess that income which has escaped assessment. The income which is subject matter of assessment in the original assessment

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

fact that the assessee is the main person in Jain Group, the DDIT (Inv), New Delhi referred the issues to the assessing officer, accordingly reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the assessee. When the above findings were any transactions with the Dalmias. From the record submitted before