← All Phrases

“escapement of income”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1473,765 judgments

The decision most relied on for escapement of income is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on escapement of income

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
198 ITR 297 · 1992 · Supreme Court
814
citing judgments

A court's pronouncement derives its scope and color from the specific questions involved in the case, thus, due regard must always be given to the questions framed before the court when interpreting its judgment.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing escapement of income

ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alaska India Marketing, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7443/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohit UdaniFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

escaped income. Further, Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above said escapement of income. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and before the Ld.CIT(A) assessee submitted detailed submissions that there is an arithmetic mistake in the credit ... Assessing Officer in his letter dated 24.02.2020. Therefore, it clearly indicates that the re-assessment initiated with the wrong notion that there is escapement of income and we observe that Ld.CIT(A) has rightly allowed the grounds raised by the assessee by deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

from M/s. GIPL is taxable as deemed dividend in the hands of the Assessee. 7.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no escapement of income in the form of deemed dividend in the hands of these two assesses as such the A.O cannot invoke the provisions of s.147 ... under:- “The Assessing officer has power to reopen an assessment, 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. The validity of the notice reopening the assessment under section

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

from M/s. GIPL is taxable as deemed dividend in the hands of the Assessee. 7.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no escapement of income in the form of deemed dividend in the hands of these two assesses as such the A.O cannot invoke the provisions of s.147 ... under:- “The Assessing officer has power to reopen an assessment, 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. The validity of the notice reopening the assessment under section

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe". but not the established fleet of escapement of income. At the stage of issue. of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite

Mehul Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 384/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251(2)

I.T.A. No. 384 & 387/Mum/2022 already attained finality. Accordingly, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 147 to make protective addition once there is no escapement of income and secondly his reasoning is based on wrong assumption of facts. On this ground, we hold that reopening itself

Rameshwara Kudumangalore Prathamika Krushi Pattinasahakara Sanga Niyamitha, Kodugu vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kodugu

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 492/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

facts and circumstances and on Law, the Hon'ble Pr.CIT assumed the jurisdiction u/s 263 on the issues on which the escapement of income are on probability and further based on pure guess-work which is not permissible u/s 263 and therefore improper assumption jurisdiction on surmises and conjectures

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7933/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

fact necessary for its assessment. He also noted that considering the new credible information on record, he has reason to belief about the escapement of income. ITA Nos. 7742, 7582, 7933/Mum/2019 CO No. 62/Mum/2021 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 023. On careful reading of the reasons ... 7933/Mum/2019 CO No. 62/Mum/2021 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 assessment proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any escapement of income, if at all, is not because of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 027. Further, the learned Assessing Officer

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

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7742/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

fact necessary for its assessment. He also noted that considering the new credible information on record, he has reason to belief about the escapement of income. ITA Nos. 7742, 7582, 7933/Mum/2019 CO No. 62/Mum/2021 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 023. On careful reading of the reasons ... 7933/Mum/2019 CO No. 62/Mum/2021 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 assessment proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any escapement of income, if at all, is not because of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 027. Further, the learned Assessing Officer

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

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7582/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

fact necessary for its assessment. He also noted that considering the new credible information on record, he has reason to belief about the escapement of income. ITA Nos. 7742, 7582, 7933/Mum/2019 CO No. 62/Mum/2021 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 023. On careful reading of the reasons ... 7933/Mum/2019 CO No. 62/Mum/2021 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 assessment proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any escapement of income, if at all, is not because of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 027. Further, the learned Assessing Officer

Payal Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3701/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpayal Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle 1 Cabin No. 2-A, 111, Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, Satyam Shopping Centre, Wayale Nagar, M.G. Road, Ghatkopar, Khadakpada, (East), Kalyan (West), Mumbai – 400 077 421301 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp6567B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.S. MathuriaFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

Department to the appellant for filing his objection; [c] that the assessing officer has provided his alleged recorded reasons and belief of escapement of income to the appellant for filing his objection. [d] that the assessing officer has obtained approval u/s 151 before initiation of impugned reassessment proceedings ... made by the assessing officer. [1] solely relying on alleged information received from the Sales Tax Department for forming his alleged belief of escapement of income of the appellant without any investigation by him; [b] solely relying on alleged affidavits filed by certain persons before the Sales Tax Department without

Devkinandan Bagadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department NFAC ITO 17(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 367/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

superior officers. Merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO, is not enough. Then, the reasons to believe escapement of income need to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment. The reasons must also paraphrase any investigation report, which ... case of the present assessee, it remains undisputed that though the reasons recorded by the A O for belief of escapement of income contain reference to material forming the basis thereof, such material, despite written request by the assessee to the AO in this regard, was never supplied

Devkinandan Bagadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

superior officers. Merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO, is not enough. Then, the reasons to believe escapement of income need to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment. The reasons must also paraphrase any investigation report, which ... case of the present assessee, it remains undisputed that though the reasons recorded by the A O for belief of escapement of income contain reference to material forming the basis thereof, such material, despite written request by the assessee to the AO in this regard, was never supplied

Smt Sonu B Nadar, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (3)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 6708/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

with ICICI Bank. Since the gross receipts of the assessee was only Rs 7,96,506/-, the ld. AO observed that there was escapement of income of the assessee as the cash deposits could not be explained by gross receipts and accordingly reopened the assessment of the assessee by issuance

Income Tax Officer-27(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Aditya Bansilal Damani, Mumbai

ITA 2423/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- Shri Aditya Bansilal 27(1)(1), Damani, Room No.406, 1301, Luv Kush Towers, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Sindhi Society, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Nr. Vivekanand School, Complex, Chembur, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 071 Navi Mumbai Pan: Affpd0348N Maharashtra – 400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

part of the income of the appellant, and it cannot be established that 5 Shri Aditya Bansilal Damani there has been an escapement of income on account of client code modification. The AO has proceeded to make the additions in view of suspicious circumstances, assumptions and allegations arising from

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

assessment in the hands of the assessee. We find that Ld. AO was clinched with tangible information from investigation wing which suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. In our opinion, nothing more was required at this Shiva Shakti Enclave P Ltd; A.Y. 2009–10 stage

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

ITA 456/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

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)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

456/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2008-09) & C.O. No. 180/Mum/2018 M/s. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., reach a specific finding of his satisfaction regarding the escapement of income. The assessee vide its letter dated 26/04/2019 made an application before the Bench to admit the filing of additional evidences. The additional evidences filed

Shreerang Prakash Chikhalikar, Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1359/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshreerang Prakash Vs. Ito – 1(3)(2) Chikhalikar,501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Sugan, Cumballa Hill Bhavan, M.K.Road, Road, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400036. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acdpc3706G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dm Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Anoop Hiwase.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.DM Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Anoop Hiwase.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 57

time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. The limited scrutiny was converted into complete scrutiny to verify the possibility of escapement of income due to huge credits found in the assessee bank accounts. 3. The A.O. based on the information and details submitted found that the assessee

Jeevan Deep Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1439/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

return of income filed by the assessee, i.e., he did not make addition of Rs.2,02,00,000/-, which was considered as escapement of income in the reasons recorded by him for reopening of assessment. 3 Jeevan Deep Trust 3. The Learned CIT (Exemptions), upon examination of assessment record, took

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

scrutiny, the assessee could have got away with deduction claimed u/s80IB(10) of the Act and in that process there would have been escapement of income and therefore he was of the opinion that the assessee has concealed its income and also filed inaccurate particulars and simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

scrutiny, the assessee could have got away with deduction claimed u/s80IB(10) of the Act and in that process there would have been escapement of income and therefore he was of the opinion that the assessee has concealed its income and also filed inaccurate particulars and simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings