“reason to believe”

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

section 148 on the basis of any information which comes to his notice from sources different from search and seizure and he has reasons to believe that some income has escaped assessment, when the notice under section 153A has already been issued ? In this regard, the literal interpretation of section ... regard to proving the genuineness of the transaction and the identity and the creditworthiness of the creditors. Therefore, when the assessing officer has reason to believe that the sources of assessee's capital introduced in the form of share capital are not satisfactorily proven by the assessee, the addition under

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

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

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

respect of the Investment made in securities of M/s. Rajesh Exports to the tune of Rs, 25.37 Crores, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that there is an escapement of Income and accordingly the case of the assessee was reopened U/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly

Mrs. Deepal N Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

four years, the original return of income was accepted by the Revenue under section 143(1) of the Act. The AO has no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment but has invoked the re- assessment proceedings merely on suspicion. The requirement ... reasons to believe and not reason to suspect. In support of his contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. 422 ITR 337 (Bom.). 3.1 The ld. AR submitted that on merits, the AO has made addition

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, We Deem It Fit To Address The Preliminary Issue As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Had Validly Assumed Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. We Have Heard Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. We Find That The Return Of Income For The A.Y.2011-12

dated 12/12/2018. In the said re-assessment proceedings, the ld. AO had not even made any addition despite the fact that he had reason to believe that income of Rs.11,55,330/- had escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee which was sought to be taxed u/s.56 ... reasons recorded by the ld. AO was ultimately not added by the ld. AO in the re-assessment proceedings, then the primary reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment fails and such re-assessment cannot be treated as a 6 Aishwarya Rai Bachchan valid order

ITO Ward - 1(1), Kalyan vs. Shri Kantilal Kachara Gada, Bhiwandi

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 O/O Income Tax Officer, Shri Kantilal Kachara Ward – 1(1), Gada, 1St Floor, Flat No.A-202, Mohan Plaza, H. No.1164, Wayale Nagar, Vs. Green Acre Society, Kalyan West-421 301 Behind Oshwal Sagar Hall, Anjurphata, Bhiwandi - 421302 Pan: Ackps4697P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income Tax Act, 1961. Further Ld. CIT(A) neither provided any documentary evidence on the basis of which AO established a reason to believe for reopening of assessment nor provided Cross Examination of the concern third party even after specifically requested by the appellant during the course

Mr. Navinchandra Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 517 & 518/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Mr. Navinchandra Shah Vs. Pr.Cit- 20, 10/11, Harganga Room No.418, Mahal, Khodadad 4Th Floor, Circle, Dadar-Tt, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – 400014. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps6096A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rakesh Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit)-20, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. Since The Issues In These Appeal Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 22.07.2014 with a total income of Rs. 60,77,230/-.The A.O has reason to believe that there is income escaping the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee has filed a letter to treat

Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Bhavesh Kantilal Vs. Pcit-20 Kubadia Room No. 418, 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath 4Th Floor, Bldg, Sk Bole, Dadar Piramal Chamber (W), Mumbai – 400028 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rakesh Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gains on penny stock shares u/sec 10(38) of the Act. The A.O. has reason to believe that income has escaped the Assesseement and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee has filed a letter

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Breach Candy Vs. Dcit, Cc5(3) Swimming Bath Trust Room No. 1906, 19Th 66, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Air India Bldg, Road, Breach Candy, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0133F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah & Shri.Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Passed U/Sec144 R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Act (A.Y.2014-15) & U/Sec 143(3)R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (A.Y.2015-16). Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical & Inter Connected, Hence Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

office premises and further the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y 2015-16. The Assessing officer (A.O.) has reason to believe that there is a income ITA No. 2469/Mum/2021 & Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai. escaping the assessment. In compliance to notice

ACIT, Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Creo Lifestyles P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 6(2)(1) Vs. M/S Creo Lifestyle Pvt Room No. 504, Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 161, 2Nd Floor, Starcity Mk Road, Manmala Tank Road, Mumbai – 4000 020 Mahim West Mumbai – 400016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8961N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

observed that the assessee has obtained the purchase bills from M/s. Siddhivinayak Corporation of Rs. 13,46,712/-. Therefore, the A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee has filed a letter dated

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

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1676/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Translands Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.451, Aayakar Vs. Office No. A-702, 7Th Floor, Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Everest Nivara Infotech Park, Mumbai-400020. Plot No.D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0036B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Which Was Reopened By Ao On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction I.E. Merely On The Basis Of Information Received In Letter From Dy. Dit (Inv.) In Respect Of Search & Seizure U/S 132 Of The Act In The Case Of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt Without Application Of His Own Mind Before Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Reopened By Ao Without Taking The Requisite Approval From The Principal Commissioner U/S 151(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Recording The Satisfaction That It Is A Fit Case For Reopening On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded By The Ld Ao As No Exact Copy Of The Said Approval Has Been Given To The Appellant.

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 the income chargeable to” tax under the provisions has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2012-13, coming within the meaning of the section 147of