“tangible material”

Sudar Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

order dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. From the evidence available on record, it is discernible that the AO had tangible material based on which the brief was formed that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year under consideration, therefore, the initiation

Virambhai Purshotamdas Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

pertaining to Pravin Kumar Jain Group. Therefore, we are of the considered view that decision of the ld. CIT(A) that there was credible tangible material before the A.O on the basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT

Bhavesh Kumar Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 5(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

pertaining to Pravin Kumar Jain Group. Therefore, we are of the considered view that decision of the ld. CIT(A) that there was credible tangible material before the A.O on the basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT

Govindbhai Tribhuvandas Patel, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

pertaining to Pravin Kumar Jain Group. Therefore, we are of the considered view that decision of the ld. CIT(A) that there was credible tangible material before the A.O on the basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT

Alkesh Patel (Prop. of M/S Umiya Gems), Mumbai vs. Income Tax 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 7329 To 7331/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2007-08 To 2009-10) Shri Govindbhai Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(1) Tribhuvandas Patel Room No. 1908, 19Th (Prop. Of M/S G.T. Exports) Floor, Air India Building, 4/F Raghav Wadi, Nariman Point, Ground Floor, French Mumbai - 400021 Bridge, Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ahbpp4781D Appellant .. Respondent

pertaining to Pravin Kumar Jain Group. Therefore, we are of the considered view that decision of the ld. CIT(A) that there was credible tangible material before the A.O on the basis of which reason to believe was recorded for 11 Appeals Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas patel Vs. DCIT

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

assessee challenged the validity of re- assessment before the ld. CIT(A) also by submitting that the ld. AO did not have any tangible material with him which would enable him to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. This is evident from the fact that ... triggered the reopening only based on verification of records. This goes to prove beyond doubt that there was absolutely no tangible material available with the ld AO to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. On this count also, the reopening of the assessment deserves

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

assessee challenged the validity of re- assessment before the ld. CIT(A) also by submitting that the ld. AO did not have any tangible material with him which would enable him to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. This is evident from the fact that ... triggered the reopening only based on verification of records. This goes to prove beyond doubt that there was absolutely no tangible material available with the ld AO to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. On this count also, the reopening of the assessment deserves

The Pr. CIT Mumbai City-19, Mumbai vs. Shri Champaklal M. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) had erred in holding that the AO has issued notice u/s 148 without bringing any tangible material on record without considering that assessee purchased property and source of investment in immovable property is unexplained recorded in the reason. 2 Whether ... made without application of mind on the basis of reason to suspect and not on the basis of reason to believe without being any tangible material on record. c. Reopening in this case has been made beyond 4 years without showing any failure on the part of appellant to make

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result of the Revenue Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1722/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Comm Of Income M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Tax Central Circle Ltd Mumbai 5(1) Mumbai 3Rdfloor, Titanic Bldg, बिधम/ Room No.1928, Chandivali Farm Road, Vs. 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Malegaon, Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra 400072 Maharashtra,400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ : Shri Madhur Agarwal Appellant By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri. Manoj Sinha, Sr.Ar. By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

after detail scrutiny and enquiry on a particular issue, then re-opening u/s 147 on same very issue cannot be made without any tangible material coming on record having live link nexus with the 13 I.T.A. No. 1722/Mum/2022 M/s Arch pharmalabs Ltd. income escaping assessment. The entire substratum and premise

Aakash Films Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -50, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

being invalid. 2. Re-opening in the absence of fresh material available on record is also invalid. The Ld. AO had no fresh tangible material on record to re-open the matter. 6 ITA NO. 1762 & 1763/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Aakash Films Private Limited & M/s. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited

M/S. Sumit Exports, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

what else is further required to prove the Long term capital gain in view of the Learned Assessing Officer. There is no tangible material with the income tax department in support of treating such capital gain as short term capital gain instead of long term capital gain. In this regards

ITO 24(2), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

before us. 8. During the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative (‘learned DR’) submitted that the information received from the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata is tangible material based on which the AO formulated its belief that income chargeable to tax, for the year under consideration, has escaped assessment in the case ... claimed. Learned AR further submitted that the AO has not verified the facts and mere receipt of information from any source cannot tantamount to tangible material for the formation of reason to believe. The learned AR also placed reliance upon various decisions in support of its submission. 10. We have

Income Tax Officer 24(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

before us. 8. During the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative (‘learned DR’) submitted that the information received from the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata is tangible material based on which the AO formulated its belief that income chargeable to tax, for the year under consideration, has escaped assessment in the case ... claimed. Learned AR further submitted that the AO has not verified the facts and mere receipt of information from any source cannot tantamount to tangible material for the formation of reason to believe. The learned AR also placed reliance upon various decisions in support of its submission. 10. We have