“reason to believe”

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

accommodation entries during the financial year 2008-09 through the concerns managed by ‘Shri Praveen Kumar Jain’. The assessing officer after recording reasons to believe that income escaped assessment, issued notice under section 148 of the Act, on 10/03/2015. The assessee filed return of income and assessment under section ... assessee has not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax, in the garb of bogus purchase by way of accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 80,45,300/- from

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

Commissioner or] Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that— ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 (a) any person ... section 120, it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers under this sub-section in all cases where he has reason to believe that any delay in getting the authorisation from the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] having jurisdiction

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

Shri Atul Kumar Swami (ITA 112/2014) (TS-166-HC-2014-Del), wherein it has been held as under: “As to what constitutes valid “reasons to believe” is no longer a matter of debate. So long as the law declared in Kelvinator (supra) stands, a valid reopening of assessment ... wherein it has been held that the ingredients of section 147 of the Act are a reason to believe by the AO that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment or the loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance has been excessively claimed by the Assessee, Where assessment

Income Tax Officer WD -3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Navjivan Engineering Works, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanita Nos. 58 & 59/Mum/2022 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward 3(2) M/S Navjeevan 2Ndfloor,Ranimansion, Engineering Works Murbad, Road, D-18, Midc, Phase-Ii Kalyan(W)-42131 Manpada Road, Maharashtra Dombivali (E) Maharashtra – 421204 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabfn2813K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.04.2022 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 Appeals 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

Bini Builders P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1321/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Central Circle-7(3) 203-204, Raigad Darshan, Jp Room No.655, Aayakar Vs. Road, Andheri West, Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb3447R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.05.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceeding Under Section 147. A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & Creating Reason To Believe For Escaped Assessment U/S. 147 As There Was No Failure On Part Of Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly Fact.

proceeding under section 147. A.Y.2009-10 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming and creating reason to believe for escaped assessment u/s. 147 as there was no failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly fact. 3. On the facts ... original return was processed u/s 143(1) and the only requirement in 8 A.Y.2009-10 law to trigger assessment was that Ld. AO certain reasons to believe that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. We find that Ld. AO was clinched with tangible information from investigation wing

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

No.701-705/Mum/2019 Nayan Arvind Lalan; AY 09-10 to 13-14 reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

No.701-705/Mum/2019 Nayan Arvind Lalan; AY 09-10 to 13-14 reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

No.701-705/Mum/2019 Nayan Arvind Lalan; AY 09-10 to 13-14 reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

No.701-705/Mum/2019 Nayan Arvind Lalan; AY 09-10 to 13-14 reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

No.701-705/Mum/2019 Nayan Arvind Lalan; AY 09-10 to 13-14 reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

accommodation entries during the financial year 2008-09 through the concerns managed by ‘Shri Praveen Kumar Jain’. The assessing officer after recording reasons to believe that income escaped assessment, issued notice under section 148 of the Act, on 10/03/2015. The assessee filed return of income and assessment under section ... assessee has not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax, in the garb of bogus purchase by way of accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 80,45,300/- from

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

from 1st April, 1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider ... However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open

Harmeet Singh Sablok, Mumbai vs. The ITO WD 22(1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleharmeet Singh Sablok V. Income Tax Officer – 22(1)(5) A/24, Queens Park Premises Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers Juhu, Santacruz (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Alrps3621D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Turalkar Department By Smt Bharati Singh

Harmeet Singh Sablok during period F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 also. In view of the said fact, the A.O. had reason to believe that assessee’s income amounting to Rs. 17,36,450/- chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2010-11 had escaped assessment within meaning of provisions

The Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Cit-15(3)(1) M/S. Translands Infrastructure Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Developers P. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Jn-3, 14-15, Aashirward Chs, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703

failure on „the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment.‟ Therefore, I have the reason to believe that 4 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd. the income chargeable to” tax under the provisions has escaped assessment

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

erred in confirming the action of AO in reopening the matter u/s 147 based on vague, contradictory and unclear, reason to believe and as such the reopening is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... right in invoking 148 instead of 153C: At the outset we would like to draw your attention to the relevant portion of the Reason to believe issued by the Ld.A.O. in AY10-11 viz. DCIT-13(3)(1) which is reproduced as below: "Since account of M/s. Ravi Nirman Nigam

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

erred in confirming the action of AO in reopening the matter u/s 147 based on vague, contradictory and unclear, reason to believe and as such the reopening is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... right in invoking 148 instead of 153C: At the outset we would like to draw your attention to the relevant portion of the Reason to believe issued by the Ld.A.O. in AY10-11 viz. DCIT-13(3)(1) which is reproduced as below: "Since account of M/s. Ravi Nirman Nigam

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

accommodation entries. The Court held that "we do not find anything in the said affidavit that establishes there is a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment." The Court also held that "they are unable to agree with the department since petitioner has clearly stated that all the payments

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

accommodation entries. The Court held that "we do not find anything in the said affidavit that establishes there is a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment." The Court also held that "they are unable to agree with the department since petitioner has clearly stated that all the payments

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

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

passing the order u/s 263 without considering the fact that the sole issue for reassessment, as per the 2 A.Y. 2010-11 reason to believe, was the information gathered during the course of search proceedings in the case of Bhoomi Group of Companies and the survey on the Assessee ... 133A, whereas the issue of expenditure claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account was neither the subject matter of reason to believe nor the reassessment order. Hence, Ld. Principal CIT failed to appreciate that re-assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue