“reason to believe”

Aadi Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

that the assessment was reopened after recording the reasons that assessee has obtained accommodation entries and Assessing Officer has recorded that he has reason to believe the income has escaped assessment for the present assessment year. 11. In the re-assessment proceedings, Ld. Pr.CIT observed that no specific questionnaire

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Deval D Thakkar [Now Known As Smt Deval E Anthony], Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

claimed receipt from RIB (which got matured in 2003), but could not give details of source of investment, the AO formed his reason to believe that assessee had foreign asset income at least since 1998 and since the assessee has not disclosed the same, according to AO it has A.Ys ... Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel urges that Section 147 of the Act empowers the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings, if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Such power is, however, subject to the provision of sections

Aakash Films Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -50, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

from the entities managed and controlled by PKJ, a proved entry provider based in Mumbai. Based on the above reasons, Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the assessee has been involved in taking accommodation entries in the forms of loans and advances. The Assessing Officer after taking prior approval ... mind to the information. The Ld. AO cannot reopen merely because he has been directed to do so by a superior. 8. The reasons to believe for reopening should be based on direct and circumstances evidence, such reasons could not be based on simply suspicion, rumor or gossip

Rajnish Chamanlal Bharti, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(3)/30(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5826/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shri Rajnish C. Bharti बिधम/ Ito-24(2)(3)/30(2)(3) 506B, Rajendra Vihar Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai. Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb6150F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C. V. Jain Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22 /11/2022 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-41, Mumbai Dated 03.08.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts, In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Ld Cit (A)] Has Erred In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. A.0) Without Having Any Lawful Jurisdiction As- A. There Were No Cogent Reasons To Believe That The Income Had Escaped Assessment & Accordingly The Provisions Of Section 147 & 148 Were Not Applicable To The Case

impugned assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer (Ld. A.0) without having any lawful jurisdiction as- a. there were no cogent reasons to believe that the Income had escaped assessment and accordingly the provisions of section 147 & 148 were not applicable to the case, 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Rajnish ... action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not accepting the contention of the assessee that the AO without fulfilling the condition precedents (“reason to believe escapement of Income”) has resorted to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). Therefore, according

M/S. Kopran Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -7(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Kopran Ltd. 1St Floor, Parijat House, The Dcit–7(1) 1076, Mumbai Vs. Dr. E Moses Road,Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack3202D Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Bhupendra Karkhanis, Ars Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2022

mere paper companies, being operated by the said CA firm, with whom their books of accounts were lying. Therefore, there is all reason to believe that the transactions are not genuine. 10.4 As mentioned previously, the appellant in its detailed submission has put in a lot of emphasis ... that appealed to the learned judges. It is true that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real. In a case of the present kind a party who relies on a recital in a deed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

order u/s. 210(3) dt. 20.02.2016 Rs. 60, 00,000/-. Total 15.00 6,57,98,479/- Accordingly, I have reason to believe that there is an escapement of assessment to the tune of Rs. 3, 80, 00,000/- in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2012- 13 within ... notice under section 148, he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

order u/s. 210(3) dt. 20.02.2016 Rs. 60, 00,000/-. Total 15.00 6,57,98,479/- Accordingly, I have reason to believe that there is an escapement of assessment to the tune of Rs. 3, 80, 00,000/- in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2012- 13 within ... notice under section 148, he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Ronak Gems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

other hand, Section 147/148 of the Act empowers an Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment wherever he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This power under Section 147/148 of the Act is subject to various limitation provided therein. The power of reopening of assessment ... after having issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, there can be no occasion for the Assessing Officer to have reason to believe the income chargeable had escaped assessment, for the reason that the Assessing Officer can issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, to complete

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

Bench: Us:-

assessee. They are :- Section 132(1) - If the concerned authority has in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) where a person fails to produce the books of accounts and other documents in response to notice u/s 142(1) or summons issued ... assessee. They are :- Section 132(1) - If the concerned authority has in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) where a person fails to produce the books of accounts and other documents in response to notice u/s 142(1) or summons issued

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

Bench: Us:-

assessee. They are :- Section 132(1) - If the concerned authority has in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) where a person fails to produce the books of accounts and other documents in response to notice u/s 142(1) or summons issued ... assessee. They are :- Section 132(1) - If the concerned authority has in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) where a person fails to produce the books of accounts and other documents in response to notice u/s 142(1) or summons issued

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

Bench: Us:-

assessee. They are :- Section 132(1) - If the concerned authority has in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) where a person fails to produce the books of accounts and other documents in response to notice u/s 142(1) or summons issued ... assessee. They are :- Section 132(1) - If the concerned authority has in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) where a person fails to produce the books of accounts and other documents in response to notice u/s 142(1) or summons issued

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

Bench: Us:-

assessee. They are :- Section 132(1) - If the concerned authority has in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) where a person fails to produce the books of accounts and other documents in response to notice u/s 142(1) or summons issued ... assessee. They are :- Section 132(1) - If the concerned authority has in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) where a person fails to produce the books of accounts and other documents in response to notice u/s 142(1) or summons issued