“borrowed satisfaction”

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

escaped assessment. The conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a 'borrowed satisfaction'.-the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147/148 to reopen the assessments for the AYS in question does not satisfy the requirement

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

reasons recorded and merely, based on tax evasion petition, the learned Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment. Therefore, reasons to belief are based on borrowed satisfaction. ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 ii. The learned Assessing Officer has not made any addition ... breach of settled position in law that re-opening notice has to be issued by Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. iv. On the issue of disallowance, he submitted that assessee has shown a turnover of 91 crores and has claimed expenses of ₹94.89 crores

M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

reasons recorded and merely, based on tax evasion petition, the learned Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment. Therefore, reasons to belief are based on borrowed satisfaction. ITA nos. 1064 & 1186/Mum/2019 M/s Opel Paper Mills Ltd; A.Y. 09–10 ii. The learned Assessing Officer has not made any addition ... breach of settled position in law that re-opening notice has to be issued by Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. iv. On the issue of disallowance, he submitted that assessee has shown a turnover of 91 crores and has claimed expenses of ₹94.89 crores

Shree Ahuja Properties & Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -6 (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Shree Ahuja Vs. Dcit – Cc – 6(2) Properties & Developers Room No. 1903, 19Th A/201, Rajpipla, Opp Floor, Air India Bldg, Standard Chartered Nariman Point, Bank, Santacruz(W), Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400054. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefs2387M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 54 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

without giving any specific transaction/s or detail/s of any income escaping assessment; e) the reasons, even if held to be valid, are recorded upon borrowed satisfaction i.e. on the direction of the third party i.e. DDIT (Inv.) and not on the basis of reason to believe of the AO himself

Advance Technoloies Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

assessee, when confronted with this material, did not have much to say beyond reiterating his submissions nevertheless. As for the grievance about borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, it is only elementary that at the stage of reopening the assessment, all that is required is the material for prima facie

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

appellant specifically emphasizing that the AO had mere relied on Justice M.B.Shah Commission report in reopening of the assessment which amounts to borrowed satisfaction . Appellant had relied on the case of Sesa Sterlite. Ltd in 417 ITR 0334 (Bom), wherein the reasons for reopening were Stated to be the Report ... Justice M B Shah Commission, hence the hon’ble Bombay High Court had held that the re-opening was on borrowed satisfaction. 4.1 As seen from the facts, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court judgement Squarely applicable to the case of AO of PEC Ltd, New Delhi whose basis

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

appellant specifically emphasizing that the AO had mere relied on Justice M.B.Shah Commission report in reopening of the assessment which amounts to borrowed satisfaction . Appellant had relied on the case of Sesa Sterlite. Ltd in 417 ITR 0334 (Bom), wherein the reasons for reopening were Stated to be the Report ... Justice M B Shah Commission, hence the hon’ble Bombay High Court had held that the re-opening was on borrowed satisfaction. 4.1 As seen from the facts, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court judgement Squarely applicable to the case of AO of PEC Ltd, New Delhi whose basis

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

appellant specifically emphasizing that the AO had mere relied on Justice M.B.Shah Commission report in reopening of the assessment which amounts to borrowed satisfaction . Appellant had relied on the case of Sesa Sterlite. Ltd in 417 ITR 0334 (Bom), wherein the reasons for reopening were Stated to be the Report ... Justice M B Shah Commission, hence the hon’ble Bombay High Court had held that the re-opening was on borrowed satisfaction. 4.1 As seen from the facts, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court judgement Squarely applicable to the case of AO of PEC Ltd, New Delhi whose basis

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

counsel of the assessee are accordingly rejected. 15. Fifthly, the Ld. counsel submitted that reasons were recorded on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction and no information was verified by the Assessing Officer. 16. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer has formed requisite belief on the basis of the records

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

counsel of the assessee are accordingly rejected. 15. Fifthly, the Ld. counsel submitted that reasons were recorded on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction and no information was verified by the Assessing Officer. 16. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer has formed requisite belief on the basis of the records

Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemulti Commodity Exchange Of V. Pr.Cit –(Central)-4 India Limited 6Th Floor, Room No. 663 Cts 255, Exchange Square Suren Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aadcm8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

India Limited 10. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are also of the view that Ld. Pr.CIT cannot initiate the proceedings with the borrowed satisfaction and not satisfying the twin conditions laid down u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view the proceedings initiated u/s.263 ... with a borrowed satisfaction is bad in law. Accordingly, proceedings initiated u/s. 263 of the Act are set aside. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.04.2022. (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 27.04.2022 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy

The Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Cit-15(3)(1) M/S. Translands Infrastructure Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Developers P. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Jn-3, 14-15, Aashirward Chs, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703

Income Tax Act. 2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the reassessment u/s 147 which was reopened by AO on the basis of borrowed satisfaction i.e. merely on the basis of information received in letter from Dy. DIT (Inv.) in respect of search and seizure

ITO 10 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kailashnath Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

record satisfaction that income has escaped assessment. Perusal of reasons recorded for re-opening assessment makes it clear that this is a case of borrowed satisfaction where reassessment proceedings have been initiated under the directions of superiors for verification of the transaction without forming any belief that the income

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

materials placed for his consideration which enabled him to form such a belief. 27. The contention that this is a case of borrowed satisfaction also cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer had perused the materials and analysed the same so as to come to the conclusion that prima facie

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

materials placed for his consideration which enabled him to form such a belief. 27. The contention that this is a case of borrowed satisfaction also cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer had perused the materials and analysed the same so as to come to the conclusion that prima facie