“tangible material”

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

that there was any non disclosure of any information on part of the assessee during the original assessment proceedings without appreciating that the new tangible material in form of the information from the DCIT- 19(2), New Delhi was received by the AO on which the AO had acted ... treating that the AO has not arrived at his own satisfaction based on new tangible material and independent analysis as required under the provisions of the Act and that the conclusion of the AO was conjecture based on suspicions of another officer without appreciating that on the basis of information

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

that there was any non disclosure of any information on part of the assessee during the original assessment proceedings without appreciating that the new tangible material in form of the information from the DCIT- 19(2), New Delhi was received by the AO on which the AO had acted ... treating that the AO has not arrived at his own satisfaction based on new tangible material and independent analysis as required under the provisions of the Act and that the conclusion of the AO was conjecture based on suspicions of another officer without appreciating that on the basis of information

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

that there was any non disclosure of any information on part of the assessee during the original assessment proceedings without appreciating that the new tangible material in form of the information from the DCIT- 19(2), New Delhi was received by the AO on which the AO had acted ... treating that the AO has not arrived at his own satisfaction based on new tangible material and independent analysis as required under the provisions of the Act and that the conclusion of the AO was conjecture based on suspicions of another officer without appreciating that on the basis of information

Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

exercise the jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. The expression „reason to believe‟ imports the cumulative presence of following four elements viz. some tangible material or materials to establish that income has escaped assessment; nexus between such material and the belief of escapement of income from assessment as envisaged

ACIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(1), D-31, Star Apartment, S.V. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Borivali (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Tax-12(2)(1), 31, Star Apartment, S.V. Road, Borivali Room No. 128E, 1St Floor, Vs. West, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that learned A has initiated the reassessment proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction

Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(1), D-31, Star Apartment, S.V. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Borivali (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Tax-12(2)(1), 31, Star Apartment, S.V. Road, Borivali Room No. 128E, 1St Floor, Vs. West, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that learned A has initiated the reassessment proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction

Flair Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground of appeal No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Flair Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(2), 4Th Floor, Chawda Commercial Mumbai-400020. Centre, Chincholi Bunder Road, Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aabcf 1094 P Appellant Respondent

grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that learned AO has initiated the reassessment proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction ... onus in this case was on the appellant to prove, with reference to reasons recorded u/s.148(2) that the AO did not have any tangible material to reopen the assessment. Therefore, hold that the appellant has not been able to substantiate its contention with supporting documents. I, therefore, dismiss ground

Dy CIT CC 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S R S Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc – 4(1) Vs. M/S. R.S. Associates Room No. 1918, Commerz, 3Rd Floor, 19Th Floor, Air India Business Park, Bldg, Nariman Point, Oberoi Gardens City, Mumbai – 400 021. Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent M/S. R.S. Associates Vs. Dcit, Cc – 4(1) Commersz,3Rd Floor, Room No. 1918, Business Park, 19Th Floor, Air India Oberoi Gardens City, Bldg, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent Assesse By : Mr.Vijay Mehta.Ar Revenue By : Mr.T.Sankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of

assumed that when the revenue is being shared,the cost/expenditure shall also be shared between the assessee and developer. Further there is no tangible material was brought to our knowledge by the Ld.DR to come to a conclusion that there is an income escaping the assessment. We considering the facts

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. The DCIT 15(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

expression “on going through the case records it is found……..”. Hence, this conclusively goes to prove the following:- a. There is absolutely no tangible material available with the ld. AO which would enable him to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment warranting reopening. b. There

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

check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is “tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment, Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief ... matter of debate. So long as the law declared in Kelvinator (supra) stands, a valid reopening of assessment has to be based only on tangible material to justify the conclusion that there is escapement of income. In the present case the note forming part of the return clearly mentioned

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 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)-52

concerned, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the assessing officer and could not controvert the observations of the CIT(A) with new tangible material information or evidence to take a different view. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity ITA No. 4091/Mum/2019 & CO No. 72/Mum/2021 Rockfort Estate Developers

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

well on merits. He submitted that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on account of mere change of opinion and without having any tangible material. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant took us through the documents forming part of paper book including note on chargeability of deemed property income ... house property relating to immovable property situated at Walkeshwar, Mumbai was examined by the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded do not refer to any tangible material. The reassessment proceedings have been initiated on account of change of opinion which is not permissible as per the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

Trade Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Talent Infoway Ltd. The stand of the assessee has been that the reasons recorded did not whisper about any tangible material which triggered reopening u/s 147. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) without recording ... received detailed report from the investigation wing alongwith copies of statement recorded from both Shri Mukesh C. Choksi and Shri Jayesh Sampat. Thus, a tangible material in the form of statement recorded from the above individuals were available before the Assessing Officer after the assessment was completed. After receiving

Shri. Pravin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain The Income Tax Officer, Office No.6, Jewel Co-Op Society Ward 18(2)(5) Ltd. 3Rd Floor, 44/46, Dhanji Vs. Earnest House Ncpa Marg Street, Mumbai-400 003 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacpj5627L

basis of reason to suspect and not on reason to believe. Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain, AY 10-11 (d) There is no new tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer which justify issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act (e) The initiation of proceeding under section

Merck Performance Materials Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1210/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Merck Performance Materials बिधम/ The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Chemtreat Composites India Tax – 15(2)(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Godrej One, Pirojsha Nagar, M.K. Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400079 Pan : Aabcc5609B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Arati Vissanji For The Respondent/Revenue: C.T. Mathews सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 02.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟), Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 29.12.2017, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act.

assessment on the basis of the relevant material for formation of reasonable belief for escapement of income. 1.2 He was satisfied that there was tangible material before the AO for formation of reasonable belief for escapement of income and therefore assessment was required to be upheld and further erred ... have been initiated after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant Assessment Year without there being any tangible material, merely on account of change of opinion based upon ITA. No. 1210/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Revenue Audit Objection. She further submitted that there was no failure