“reason to believe”

ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alaska India Marketing, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

return of income filed by the assessee the turnover was shown only ₹.2,62,961/-. Accordingly, Assessing Officer reopened the assessment with the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly

ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alaska India Marketing, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

return of income filed by the assessee the turnover was shown only ₹.2,62,961/-. Accordingly, Assessing Officer reopened the assessment with the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly

Shantilal Surji Gala, Bhandup West vs. Income Tax Officer – 29(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Shantilal Surji Gala, Income Tax Officer – 29(3)(4), 603/C, Maven Mahavir C-10, Pratyaksh Bhavan, Universe, Room No.308, Vs. Lbs Road, Bkc, Bandra East, Bhandup West, Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 078 Pan: Ajrpg9242Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Chintan Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 07 . 2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi.

facts as elaborated above it is undisputed fact that the AO has not made any addition on the basis of which he formed reasons to believe that assessee had escaped assessment. In the case of the assessee assessment under section 143(3) read with section ... under section 148, the AO 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 independently to assess some

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that 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 ... Mumbai, the learned assessing officer found that assessee has not filed return of income for assessment year 2009 – 10 and therefore he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The assessee has challenged this reopening of the assessment stating that the reasons recorded are borrowed satisfaction, no enquiries

M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that 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 ... Mumbai, the learned assessing officer found that assessee has not filed return of income for assessment year 2009 – 10 and therefore he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The assessee has challenged this reopening of the assessment stating that the reasons recorded are borrowed satisfaction, no enquiries

Basant Dharmichand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Admittedly, no disallowance was made in the re-assessment proceedings on account of bogus purchases. Hence, the very basis of reopening fails. The reason to believe in the mind of the ld. AO fails. Accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings deserve to be quashed. Reliance in this regard is placed ... assessee in his books of account and his return of income to suppress his taxable income. As such, I have a reason to believe that an income of Rs.2,36,80,000/- as stated above, has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

above facts and various evidences garnered during the course of assessment proceedings as discussed above and after independent enquiry, the under signed has reason to believe that income exceeding Rs.20,38,586/- (More than one lac) has escaped the assessment in the case for A.Y.2015-16. Accordingly, sanction

Aarey Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleaarey Drugs & Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(3) Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 8Th Floor, Pratishta 103, Sahakar Bhavan, Bhavan, 340/348/ Narsi Natha Mumbai-400 020 Street, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai -400069. Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5253A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

total income of Rs.1,01,33,340/- Subsequently the A.O. has received the information that the assessee has claimed excess expenditure and has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The A.O found that in spite of issuing notice

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

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

truly all material facts necessary for its assessment during the year Under consideration and considering the new credible information on record, I have reasons to believe that income of more than ₹ 1 lakh chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for this assessment year i.e. assessment year 2009 – 10, coming within ... material facts. 027. Further, the learned Assessing Officer has stated that based on this ‘new credible information’ on record, he has a reason to believe about escapement of income. The learned Assessing Officer has not referred to any new tangible material, which is mandatory condition for reopening of the assessment

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

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

truly all material facts necessary for its assessment during the year Under consideration and considering the new credible information on record, I have reasons to believe that income of more than ₹ 1 lakh chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for this assessment year i.e. assessment year 2009 – 10, coming within ... material facts. 027. Further, the learned Assessing Officer has stated that based on this ‘new credible information’ on record, he has a reason to believe about escapement of income. The learned Assessing Officer has not referred to any new tangible material, which is mandatory condition for reopening of the assessment

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

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

truly all material facts necessary for its assessment during the year Under consideration and considering the new credible information on record, I have reasons to believe that income of more than ₹ 1 lakh chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for this assessment year i.e. assessment year 2009 – 10, coming within ... material facts. 027. Further, the learned Assessing Officer has stated that based on this ‘new credible information’ on record, he has a reason to believe about escapement of income. The learned Assessing Officer has not referred to any new tangible material, which is mandatory condition for reopening of the assessment

Devkinandan Bagadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department NFAC ITO 17(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

been worked out at Rs. 97,68,665/-. In view of the foregoing facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax in the form of interest in cash of at least of Rs. 97,68,665/- over and above the official portion of interest ... obtaining approval of the superior officers. Merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO, is not enough. Then, the reasons to believe escapement of income need to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment. The reasons must also paraphrase