“tangible material”

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Income Tax Act 1961 after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year without bringing any fresh and tangible material on record. Further, the appellant has disclosed all material facts fully and truly during the assessment proceedings u/s 143 (3) of the act. “ 05. Brief ... September 2016, on same date assessee filed objection stating that reopening is based on [1] change of opinion, [2] no new fresh tangible material is available, [3] there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material fully and truly and therefore, the reopening is invalid

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Income Tax Act 1961 after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year without bringing any fresh and tangible material on record. Further, the appellant has disclosed all material facts fully and truly during the assessment proceedings u/s 143 (3) of the act. “ 05. Brief ... September 2016, on same date assessee filed objection stating that reopening is based on [1] change of opinion, [2] no new fresh tangible material is available, [3] there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material fully and truly and therefore, the reopening is invalid

DCIT Cent Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj Kumar Babulal Punamiya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Prescribed By Cbdt For Enabling Revenue To Prefer Appeal Before This Tribunal. This Was Vehemently Objected By The Ld. Dr By Stating That The Case Falls Under The Exception To The Said Cbdt Circular On Low Tax Effect, As In The Instant Case, The Case Was Reopened Based On Audit Objection Which Was Accepted By The Revenue. In Support Of This, The Ld. Dr Placed On Record The Copy Of The Audit Objection, Which Has Been Accepted By The Department. We Have Verified The Same & Are In Concurrence With The Argument Advanced By The Ld. Dr. Accordingly, This Is Not A Fit Case To Be Dismissed On The Ground Of Low Tax Effect. Hence The Parties Were Allowed To Represent The Issues Ground Wise.

order withdrawing the benefit of carry forward of loss. Obviously, the scrutiny assessment orders of Asst Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 becomes a tangible material available with the ld. AO to come to the conclusion that income of the assessee for the Asst Year 2011-12 had escaped assessment

Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 49, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Raigad Darshan (Appeals)–49 Oppsite Indian Oil Company, 605, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagcs5014B Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2022

assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that reassessment is not proper, as Mr. Rajesh Agrawal has retracted his statement on 16/10/2014. Therefore, there is no tangible material available with the learned AO for reopening of assessment. Further, learned AO has also relied on “some reliable sources” and therefore information is vague ... learned CIT – A upheld the reopening of the assessment holding that learned AO has recorded specific reasons, statement of Shri Rajesh Agrawal is the tangible material and the return of income filed originally by the assessee was accepted without scrutiny. He relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Archive Realty Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit, Central Circle – 5(1) V. M/S. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor 324, Master Mind-Iv, Royal Palms Air India Building Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400065 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aagca5488D (Appellant) (Respondent)

31/03/2019. Thus, Commissioner had not applied his mind while granting approval for such reopening of assessment. However, the Court noted that tangible material by way of an information was disclosed by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessment and merely because the information was receivecd at 5:47 pm and notice

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vyoman Tradelink India Pvt. Ltd.(Ealier Known As M/S. Rupee Finance and Management Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3032/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Vyoman Tradelink Dcit-8(3)(2), India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier R. No. 615, Aayakar Known As M/S Rupee Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Finance & Management Mumbai-400020 Pvt. Ltd.), 135, Continental Vs. Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr9194C (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 20.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-14, Mumbai

assessee has given the detail working and reasons for disallowance u/s 14A. Thus, reopening amounts to ‘Change of Opinion’ and there is no tangible material coming on record to show that there is any income chargeable to tax as escaping income. Apart from that, it was submitted that ... disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) @ 0.5% of the average investment. Thus, clearly the reopening has been done not on the basis of any tangible material coming on record albeit it is merely a ‘Change of Opinion’ which now as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Late Shri Haresh A. Dhakan Through His Legal Heir Mr.Krunal H. Dhakan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyallate Shri Haresh A Dhakan Through His Legal Heir Mr. Krunal H. Dhakan, A-304, Classique Centre, Plot No. 26, Mahal Industrial Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aadpd5584B ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent

instance of the Investigation Wing and without independent application of mind. (ii) Notice has been issued without application of mind and without any tangible material in possession of the assessing officer as the report from DDIT has been received subsequent to the issuance of notice

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

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

Pardiwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated in the present case are bad in law as no tangible material was available with the Assessing Officer for initiating the reassessment proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that proceedings under section ... year under consideration. From the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, it is also evident that no new or tangible material was available with the Assessing Officer for initiating the impugned reassessment proceedings. With this factual background, it is relevant to note that under the provisions

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

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

Pardiwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated in the present case are bad in law as no tangible material was available with the Assessing Officer for initiating the reassessment proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that proceedings under section ... year under consideration. From the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, it is also evident that no new or tangible material was available with the Assessing Officer for initiating the impugned reassessment proceedings. With this factual background, it is relevant to note that under the provisions

Ghanshyam Vashishta, Surat vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am

taken approval in accordance with law and there is no violation of principle of natural justice. He also observed that there was tangible material found 20 I.T.A. No. 341/Mum/2022 & Others during the course of search operation conducted on Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and is revealed that they are carrying out accommodation

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 Appeals Shri Hitesh Chhatwal Vs. DCIT, CC-5(4) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

ACIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (No Merged With Hdfc Bank Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Therefore, the action of the AO can be said to be based on change of opinion on the existing facts. There was no new tangible material, which subsequently car to the notice of the AO requiring him to issue a notice u/s.148. The Ld. AR, in this regard, has relied ... check the abuse of power by the AO. Hence, after 01.04.1989, the AO has power to re-open an assessment, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. The reasons must have a live link with the formation of belief

Ambaji Resources & Credit P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Search & Seizure operation and conclusion of Anti Corruption Wing of CBI. The information received from a Government agency like CBI certainly constitutes the tangible material for reopening of the assessment proceeding. As submitted by the AO, the returns of income were originally not scrutinized and thus, reopening under the given

Shri. Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Chirag R. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 31(1)(3) 801, Laxmi Villa, Road No. 3 Kautilya Bhavan Plot No. 281, Jawahar Nagar G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Near Suvidha Hospital Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400104 Pan: Avqps7888H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

/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 u/s 148 of the Act (c) The initiation of proceeding under section

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

examination of the witnesses against him. The department was thus duty bound to produce its witness for cross examination more particularly when no other tangible material is shown to be available to implicate the assessee. In the absence of any corroborating evidence and in the absence of cross examination offered

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

examination of the witnesses against him. The department was thus duty bound to produce its witness for cross examination more particularly when no other tangible material is shown to be available to implicate the assessee. In the absence of any corroborating evidence and in the absence of cross examination offered

ACIT-CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. K . Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

examination of the witnesses against him. The department was thus duty bound to produce its witness for cross examination more particularly when no other tangible material is shown to be available to implicate the assessee. In the absence of any corroborating evidence and in the absence of cross examination offered

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

examination of the witnesses against him. The department was thus duty bound to produce its witness for cross examination more particularly when no other tangible material is shown to be available to implicate the assessee. In the absence of any corroborating evidence and in the absence of cross examination offered

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

examination of the witnesses against him. The department was thus duty bound to produce its witness for cross examination more particularly when no other tangible material is shown to be available to implicate the assessee. In the absence of any corroborating evidence and in the absence of cross examination offered