“borrowed satisfaction”

Kemox Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainkemox Corporation Vs. Dcit-Cc-3, Thane House No. 69/100, New Room No. 12, A Wing, Mavji Compound Narpoli 6Th Floor, Ashar It 421302. Park, Thane West. Pan/Gir No. Aaffk4685A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not treating the re-opening of assessment as bad-in- law since the re-opening was entirely based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind on the part of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

Rahul Jabarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Assistant. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanrahul Jabarmal Jain Vs. Acit 19(3) 1204/B 12 Floor, Pratiksha Tower, R. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, S. Nimkar Marg, Mumbai Central, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 008 Pan: Aempj8236K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessing Officer to reopen the already concluded assessment earlier u/s.143(3) of the Act merely on change of opinion and borrowed satisfaction. In view of the same appellant prays that reassessment proceeding initiated to reopen the concluded assessment u/s.143(3) by issue of impugned notice u/s.148 dated ... assessee that AO has reopened the already concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act merely on change of opinion and on borrowed satisfaction. It is therefore submitted that issuance of impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 16.03.15 and the consequent reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Rakesh Mulchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Due Date For Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Viz. 31/03/2017, Thereby The Notice U/S.148 & Consequential Reassessment Order Passed U/S.147 Is Bad In Law;

also contended that notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued in absence of tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. It was also claimed that when no return of income was available with the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of reasons, the averment

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the re-assessment proceedings under section 148 on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of another person/department and without independent application of mind. 3 ITA 2791, 2357 & 2355/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Aptivaa Middle Ease

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the re-assessment proceedings under section 148 on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of another person/department and without independent application of mind. 3 ITA 2791, 2357 & 2355/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Aptivaa Middle Ease

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the re-assessment proceedings under section 148 on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of another person/department and without independent application of mind. 3 ITA 2791, 2357 & 2355/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Aptivaa Middle Ease

Mahesh Narayan Joglekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

void ab initio notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 30/03/2018. Secondly, upholding the action of AO on the basis of a borrowed satisfaction from investigation wing and personal statements on oath. Thirdly, confirming addition of Rs 19,95,800/-alleging non- declaration of salary income in the return ... Enterprises from the premises of whom the alleged material was recovered in a search on the said firm clearly shows that it was a borrowed satisfaction on the basis of information sent by the Investigation Unit because Evergreen Enterprises mentioned at Sr. No. 3 on the said letter

Mahesh Narayan Joglekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

void ab initio notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 30/03/2018. Secondly, upholding the action of AO on the basis of a borrowed satisfaction from investigation wing and personal statements on oath. Thirdly, confirming addition of Rs 19,95,800/-alleging non- declaration of salary income in the return ... Enterprises from the premises of whom the alleged material was recovered in a search on the said firm clearly shows that it was a borrowed satisfaction on the basis of information sent by the Investigation Unit because Evergreen Enterprises mentioned at Sr. No. 3 on the said letter