“beyond four years”

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

becomes bad in law.” (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY US) 3.5. We find that in the aforesaid decision, the reopening in that case was made beyond four years, whereas in the instant case before us, the reopening is made within four years and hence, the applicability of proviso to Section 147 that

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

becomes bad in law.” (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY US) 3.5. We find that in the aforesaid decision, the reopening in that case was made beyond four years, whereas in the instant case before us, the reopening is made within four years and hence, the applicability of proviso to Section 147 that

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Premier Supplies & Services P Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 15(2)(2) V. M/S. Premier Supplies & Services Pvt. Ltd., Office No. 47, Satya Sai Plaza Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector-11, Plot No. 5 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Panvel, Navi Mumbai - 410206 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccg2655A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

taxmann.com 548 (Gujarat)] Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment General (Illustrations) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Reopening of assessment beyond four years on basis of information received from external source, viz., Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), was not justified when there was no allegation

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

assessee to disclose full and true information disclose full and true information, which is required for reopening is required for reopening beyond four years and therefore decision in the case of Hindustan years and therefore decision in the case of Hindustan years and therefore decision in the case of Hindustan

Basant Dharmichand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Surat. 3.3. Since the reopening is made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act would come into operation. From the perusal of the aforesaid reasons, it is evident that

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

obtained by the assessee is bogus, the learned assessing officer cannot be found fault for issuing a notice u/s 148 of the act beyond four years as assessee has failed to disclose the true character of the share capital issued by it. The case of the assessee is squarely covered

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemetal Tubes & Rolling Mills V. Income Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) 1St Floor, Metal Tube & Rolling Mills Mumbai Marol Maroshi Road, Marol Village Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaefm9353N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshawala & Shri D.B. Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

authorities. 11. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that the assessment was reopened beyond four years and the original assessment was completed only u/s. 143(1) of the Act not u/s. 143(3) of the Act. However, to initiate the reopening proceeding ... Assessing Officer to record the reasons for reopening and since the issue involved in this assessment year is, reassessment was reopened beyond four years, as per section 151 of the Act the Assessing Officer has to get proper approval at the same time the respective CIT/Addl.CIT has to verify

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

assessee 9 claims to have disclosed all the material facts during proceedings, no action can be taken beyond four years. Assessee had submitted all the information for claiming deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act and also the claim of the depreciation was also deliberated upon ... failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose the material facts and hence reopening was not justified. II. Notice can be issued beyond four years from the end of assessment year [when the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act] only where there

ITO Ward 2 (3), Thane vs. Shri. Chandrashekhar Nathalal Trivedi, Mira Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries to the extent of ₹26,25,58,657/- from four different parties. As the reopening was beyond four years, LD Assessing Officer recorded the reason that due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts

Chandrashekhar Nathalal Trivedi, Mira Road vs. ITO Ward 2 (5), Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries to the extent of ₹26,25,58,657/- from four different parties. As the reopening was beyond four years, LD Assessing Officer recorded the reason that due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts