“fresh tangible material”

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, Income Tax, N.M. Marg, Vs. Central Circle-5(4), Ballard Estate, Fort, [Erstwhile Income Tax Officer-2(2), Mumbai] Mumbai 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Pan : Aaacl0140P Nariman Point, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessment was done in order to revisit the deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act and it is also not based on any fresh tangible material. From the contentions of Ld D.R, we notice that the revenue felt that there were some gaps in the examination conducted ... assessment cannot be done 6 to fill the short fall in the enquiry made during the course of original assessment proceedings, unless any fresh tangible material is brought on record which would warrant such an intervention. We may take support from the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

information coming to the notice of AO during the course of proceedings in the case of assessee himself in subsequent AY, will constitute fresh tangible material, on the foundation of which a reason to believe can be formed. The AO has aptly relied upon the authority of Hon'ble Supreme ... expiry of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to base his reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment on some fresh tangible material that provides the nexus or link to the formation of such belief. In a case where the initial return is processed under Section

Shree Sai Baba Santhan Trust Mumbai, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

information coming to the notice of AO during the course of proceedings in the case of assessee himself in subsequent AY, will constitute fresh tangible material, on the foundation of which a reason to believe can be formed. The AO has aptly relied upon the authority of Hon'ble Supreme ... expiry of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to base his reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment on some fresh tangible material that provides the nexus or link to the formation of such belief. In a case where the initial return is processed under Section

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. D Thakkar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrid Thakkar Developers Pvt. V/S. Dcit 14(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd. बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, D1 & D2, 4Th Floor, Court Churchgate, Mumbai Chambers, Vitthaldas Maharashtra-400020 Thackersey Marg, 35 New Marine Lines, Marine Lines, Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp6396E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Acit 14(1)(2), Mumbai V/S. D Thakkar Developers Pvt. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, बनाम Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M K. 1105/1106, Universal Road, Mumbai Magestic, Behind Rbk Maharashtra-400020 International School, P. L. Lokhande, Marg, Chembur West, Mumbai-400043 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp6396E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

ground that approval granted to the donee institution was subsequently withdrawn. Thus, withdrawal of approval can not be considered as a fresh tangible material for formation of opinion, as regards the escapement of income, before the issue of notice u/s. 148. Even otherwise, withdrawal notification was issued prior ... completion of original assessment vide order u/s. 143 (3) dated 28th December 2016 and hence can not be considered as a fresh tangible material. Further, the information received from Directorate of Investigation (Kolkata) can also not be considered as a fresh material since the unearthing of negative information about

D Thakkar Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

ground that approval granted to the donee institution was subsequently withdrawn. Thus, withdrawal of approval can not be considered as a fresh tangible material for formation of opinion, as regards the escapement of income, before the issue of notice u/s. 148. Even otherwise, withdrawal notification was issued prior ... completion of original assessment vide order u/s. 143 (3) dated 28th December 2016 and hence can not be considered as a fresh tangible material. Further, the information received from Directorate of Investigation (Kolkata) can also not be considered as a fresh material since the unearthing of negative information about

Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lashkaria Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Mumbai which was already available with the Assessing Officer at the time of framing the regular assessment. Therefore, in the absence of any fresh tangible material no re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the Assessee. It was further submitted that the issue related to bogus purchases were specifically examined ... Therefore, the contention of the Assessee that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated on account of change of opinion and in absence of fresh tangible material should be rejected. It was further submitted that the mere fact that reasons recorded did not make reference to the order passed under Section

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Monarch Technobuild Private Limted, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2012-13 C.O. No. 172/Mum/2024 A.Y. : 2012-13 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1287/M/24)

challenged the legality of the re-assessment on many counts, including – firstly, challenging the making of assessment on non-existing entity, secondly, no fresh tangible material for initiating re-assessment proceedings, thirdly, no link between the material and the formation of belief and lastly, the sanction obtained ... permitted under the garb of re-assessment. The learned counsel for the assessee 4 C.O.No. 172/Mum/2024 further submitted that there was no fresh tangible material for re- initiating the assessment proceedings. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that the assessee had time and again called for a copy

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited -India Branches, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

DCIT(It) - 2(2)(2), Air India Building vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Bandra

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON