“reason to believe”

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

appreciate that a) Proceeding initiated under section 147 /148 of the Act is on the basis of reason to suspect and not on reason to believe. b) There is no new tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer which justify issuance of notice

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

this order. The A.O has ITA No. 7789/Mum/2019, C.O.60/Mum/2021 12 ITO-13(2)(1) Vs. M/s Samriddhi Finvest Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. recorded reason to believe that amount of Rs.1,60,02,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provision of Sec. 147 of the Act. It is noticed

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.

section 147 as the income chargeable to tax has been under assessed. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of 25,00,000/-chargeable to tax for AY. 2010-11 has escaped assessment in this case in terms of the provisions ... accommodation provider Shri Rana to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. So there was this specific information based on which AO has based his reason to believe escapement of income. In order to appreciate the legal issue in the correct perspective [change of opinion] in the given facts of this case

Rajeshkumar Chamaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

being high value transfers with 4 ITA 797/Mum/2020 ITA 798/Mum/2020 specific group consisting of seven entities and enquiry was conducted. The A.O. has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Whereas the assessee has filed a letter on 17/04/2018

Rajeshkumar Chamaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

being high value transfers with 4 ITA 797/Mum/2020 ITA 798/Mum/2020 specific group consisting of seven entities and enquiry was conducted. The A.O. has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Whereas the assessee has filed a letter on 17/04/2018

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We note that the reasons recorded state that the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment as the Assessee has set off losses from share trading amounting to INR 39,36,79,000/- with ... there is an escapement of income in consequence, the jurisdictional requirement of Section 147 would be fulfilled on the formation of a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The reopening of the assessment within a period of four years is in these circumstances within jurisdiction.” (Emphasis Supplied

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

list of Shell Companies issued by competent authority. Apparent could not be considered as real and that when there was no reason to believe that the apparent was not real, the Taxing Authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

list of Shell Companies issued by competent authority. Apparent could not be considered as real and that when there was no reason to believe that the apparent was not real, the Taxing Authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter

ACIT 22(3), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders $ Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

list of Shell Companies issued by competent authority. Apparent could not be considered as real and that when there was no reason to believe that the apparent was not real, the Taxing Authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter

ITO-22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

list of Shell Companies issued by competent authority. Apparent could not be considered as real and that when there was no reason to believe that the apparent was not real, the Taxing Authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

treating that the AO can be said to be arrived at assumption of escapement of income and that there is no reason to believe on part of the AO to reopen the assessment without appreciating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment and that ... appreciating that the AO had the information supplied by the DCIT- 19(2), New Delhi on record which was sufficient to form the reason to believe and at no point of the time during the assessment proceedings the AO had made any fishing enquiries and that the case was validly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

treating that the AO can be said to be arrived at assumption of escapement of income and that there is no reason to believe on part of the AO to reopen the assessment without appreciating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment and that ... appreciating that the AO had the information supplied by the DCIT- 19(2), New Delhi on record which was sufficient to form the reason to believe and at no point of the time during the assessment proceedings the AO had made any fishing enquiries and that the case was validly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

treating that the AO can be said to be arrived at assumption of escapement of income and that there is no reason to believe on part of the AO to reopen the assessment without appreciating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment and that ... appreciating that the AO had the information supplied by the DCIT- 19(2), New Delhi on record which was sufficient to form the reason to believe and at no point of the time during the assessment proceedings the AO had made any fishing enquiries and that the case was validly

Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TOTAL: 8,73,25,845/– An analysis of the data is carried out. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting more than one lakhs has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2011–12 within the meaning of the section ... received from the DGIT (Inv.). 18. For initiating the proceeding under section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to have „reason to believe‟ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In present case, reassessment proceedings are nothing but mere change of opinion by Assessing Officer Sunil

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

find that the assessee for the A.Y 2007-08 has not filed the return of income and the A.O. has reason to believe that there is a income escaped the assessment and issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2014 after obtaining the sanction ... part of the assessee has resulted in escapement of income of Rs. 6,34,10,287/- as discussed above. Therefore I have reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 6,34,10,287/- has escaped income on account of failure of the assessee to file return of income

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2482, 2483 & 2484/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2010-11 & 2009-10) Acit-17(1) Vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Room No. 117, Mittal, 1St Floor, G-Block, 310, Gokul Building, Kautiliya Bhavan, Iron Market, Masjid Bandra Kurla Complex Bunder, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400009. Pan/Gir No. : Afgpm0969R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act.

bills to the tax payers. On verification of the facts, the A.O. find that the assessee is one of the beneficiary and has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently the notice

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

U/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 05.11.2012 with taxable income of Rs. 30,16,,54,954/-.Subsequently, the assessing officer (A.O.) has reason to believe that, there is income escaping the assessment as per the reasons recorded at page 2 of the assessment order and issued notice ... tune of Rs. 2,30,29,6681- and consequential tax effect of Rs. 69,08,900/-." In view of the above, / have reason to believe that the income to the extent as mentioned above, has escaped assessment within the meaning of section