“notice under section 148”

Pankaj Surech Rach, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

premised on the basis that these notices travel back to 31 March 2020 which premise is completely erroneous as explained hereinbefore. The notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on 31 July 2022 and, hence, is issued beyond period of three years from the end of the relevant ... purports to "clarify" that the unamended provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Act will apply for the purposes of issue of notices under section 148 of the Act, which is clearly ultra vires Relaxation Act. 41. In our view, the reopening notices issued after 1st April

Sharad Harivallabh Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO, 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi ( (Accountant Member)

transaction of sale or purchase of securities amounting to ₹ 4,334,694/–. Since the assessee has not filed any return of income, notice under section 148 of the income tax act was issued to the assessee on 30/3/2019 after recording the reasons and approval. The assessee did not file ... return of income in response to such notice also. The learned assessing officer has issued nine notices under section 142 (1) including notice under section 148 of the income tax act along with the notice for levy of penalty for non-compliance, Assessee did not reply to any of them

Ranjay Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with the direction to the assessee to furnish the necessary details before the Assessing

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisunil Kumar Singh, Jm A.Y.2011-12

notice was also issued wherein assessee submitted that original return of income filed may be treated as return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee that why the above amount

DCIT-191, Mumbai vs. Bhavin P Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

Group concerns. In view of the information, the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and, accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO completed the re-assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, wherein, he held purchases ... which was worked out of Rs. 4,00,604/-. 2.1 Subsequently, the AO again re-opened the assessment after recording reasons and issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2019. In the reasons recorded again, the AO referred to the information gathered during the course of search action

Yogeshkumar Omprakash Agarwal, Borivali East vs. Ward 32(1)(7), Bkc Bandra

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under section 148. The observation of the Ld.AO was that the assessee has earned long term capital gain amount to Rs.41,83,450/- related to sales

Rajen Harshadrai Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (3) - 1, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and reassessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 466/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Rajen Harshadrai Sanghavi Vs. Ito 26(3)(1) 3, Garden View Apartment Kautilya Bhavan Dr. Ambedkar Road Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai-400 080 Bandra East, Mumbai Pan : Aaips5226J 400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee/Appellant Against The Appellate Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Being Additional Cit/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) – 2, Siliguri (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2013 – 14 Dated 7/12/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer , Ward 26 (3) (1), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Wherein Claim Of Exemption Under Section 10 (38) Of The Act Of Rs. 1,657,645/– Was Denied, Was Dismissed. 2. Assessee Is Aggrieved & Is In Appeal Before Us Against The Assessment Order Denying The Exemption Under Section 10 (38) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Shows That Assessee Is An Individual Filed Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs. 269,000/– Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Of Long-Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 16,57,545/–. Roi

cash credit under section 68 of the income tax act. 5. Therefore, the learned assessing officer recorded the reasons and issued notice under section 148 of the act. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee. Thereafter notices under section 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the acts were issued ... income tax act 1961. ii. As soon as the information is received, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the act dated 29/3/2019 with prior approval of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 29, Mumbai wherein it has been mentioned that

Jyoti Deepak Gupta, Malabar Hill, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Comples

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 465/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2010-11) Jyoti Deepak Gupta Vs. Ito Ward 17(2)(1) 2, Girnar Apartments Kautilya Bhavan 10 Doongershi Road Bandra Kurla Complex Teenbati, Malbar Hill Bandra East Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Akopg3428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satya Prakash Singh Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of 12.08.2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

September 2013 however the assessee did not file any return of income to the date of recording of the reasons. 4. Accordingly notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 31/3/2017. There was no compliance of such notice. Therefore, a summons under section ... issued on 10/11/2017 but nobody attended. As the assessee has not complied with notice under section 148 , summons under section 131, therefore, notice under section 144 of the act was issued to the assessee. It was found that the assessee has entered into a share trading transaction to the tune

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gehna Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm A.Y.2013-14 Acit-4(2)(1), Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Mumbai

Officer examined the information and found that the income has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. This notice was not responded. Subsequently, the NFAC issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act wherein

Siddharth Suryakant Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-4 (2) (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi ( (Accountant Member)

form number 26AS the assessee was found to have earned the interest income of ₹ 210,961/–. The assessee was issued a notice under section 148 of the act on 15/3/2018 after recording the reasons. The assessee did not file any return of income in response to reopening notice also. Therefore ... about the investment, trading transactions and bank accounts of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee did not reply to notice under section 148 of the act as well as several other notices issued and show cause notice issued. Therefore, the learned assessing officer passed an order under