“tangible material”

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen-Circle 4(1), Mumbai vs. Mr Rashmin Girdharilal Rughani, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

been fair enough in making additions only on the basis of tangible has been fair enough in making additions only on the basis of tangible material and evidences. In view of the above, I am unable to agree with material and evidences. In view of the above, I am unable ... Raghani ITA Nos. 2143 & 2142 & CO No. 116 & ITA Nos. 2143 & 2142 & CO No. 116 & 117/Mum/2023 Ld. CIT(A) that there is a enough tangible material and evidence to Ld. CIT(A) that there is a enough tangible material and evidence to Ld. CIT(A) that there is a enough

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen-Circle 4(1), Mumbai vs. Mr Rashmin Girdharilal Rughani, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

been fair enough in making additions only on the basis of tangible has been fair enough in making additions only on the basis of tangible material and evidences. In view of the above, I am unable to agree with material and evidences. In view of the above, I am unable ... Raghani ITA Nos. 2143 & 2142 & CO No. 116 & ITA Nos. 2143 & 2142 & CO No. 116 & 117/Mum/2023 Ld. CIT(A) that there is a enough tangible material and evidence to Ld. CIT(A) that there is a enough tangible material and evidence to Ld. CIT(A) that there is a enough

Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -Ltu -1, Mumbai

In the result we find that in absence of tangible material, the reopening of assessment cannot be made

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Bajaj Auto Limited 2N D Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Income-Tax, Vs. 226, Nariman Point, Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2923M

based on the facts and submissions/ notes already on record during the course of the original assessment proceedings and there was no new tangible material on record for reopening the assessment. Addition in respect of marked-to-market gain on foreign exchange fluctuations: Rs.76 ... failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. ii. There is no new tangible material coming into the possession of the learned Assessing Officer. iii. Reopening is made merely on the change of opinion. 06. The objections

Balalji Lifestyle Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3172/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Balaji Lifestyle बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-7(1) Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. 118/120, Ashoka House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0234H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 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)-49, Mumbai Dated 02.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature So Does Not Require Any Adjudication.

counts. Firstly, according to Ld AR, the action of AO to have reopened the completed assessment is bad, since there was no tangible material in his hands to reopen the already completed assessment, which fact is discernable from perusal of the reason recorded (at para 3.1) wherein, AO has admitted ... Balaji Lifestyle Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on premium from outside agency. So, according to Ld AR, it can be seen that there was no tangible material in AO’s possession to reopen the completed assessment, therefore, his action to reopen the assessment was not permissible in law. Secondly, according

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejitendra Udaylal Jain V. National Faceless Assessment Centre(Nfac) C/O. M/S. Alankar Jewellers Shop Delhi No.1 Municipal Building R.A. Kidwai Road, Wadala Mumbai- 400037 Pan: Aabpj5480E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

group companies of Shri. Amar Chand Rander. On this basis the assessee's case was brought under assessment without any tangible material on record but on basis of information and statement of third party. 13. Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice facts and explanations in the chronological order ... credit, from the material facts on record were quite evident that it was from the sale of shares. As there was no tangible material brought on record to convert these transactions then it is very difficult to treat the sale proceeds of the shares as undisclosed income to be added

Globeop Holdings Company (Mauritius ) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax-2(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

believe and the reasons recorded are merely based on borrowed satisfaction and that too on wrong and incorrect information; e) there is NO tangible material in possession of the AO and no such material or evidence or any other documents including statements furnished to the Appellant; and thus, there

M/S Ankur Power Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

taxmann.com 300)(Delhi), when it noticed that (i) there was no independent application of mind by the assessing officer to the tangible material (ii) the conclusions of Assessing officer were reproduction of conclusion in investigation report (iii) reasons failed to demonstrate link between tangible material and formation of reasons

Shri Himanshu Manoranjan Bhatt, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Dept. NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

under section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the ITD system under the NMS module, which constitutes tangible material under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are upheld

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Life Inusrance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary to law. The Petition would have, therefore, to be allowed". Respectfully following the above

ACIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd (Now Known As Hdfc Life Insurance Co Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary to law. The Petition would have, therefore, to be allowed". Respectfully following the above