“notice under section 148”

Sandhya Ramdev Kunjur, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Holding That Appellant Needs To File A Separate Appeal Against The Order Dated 22-12-2019 Passed U/S. 144 Rws 147 When Said Order Is Issued In Electronic Mode On The Inactive Pan: Αλεpk5449B & 2 Sandhya Ramdev Kunjar The Present System Does Not Permit The Appellant To Access The Account Bearing Invalid Pan To File The Appeal Electronically Against Such Order. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Order U/S. 154 Of The Learned A O Which Did Not Give Any Reason For Holding That The Relief Sought For By The Appellant Was "Beyond The Scope Of The Act". 3. The Learned Cit-A Has Ignored The Jurisdictional High Court Judgements In Blue Star Engineering Co (Bombay) (P) Ltd Vs Cit Bombay City [1967] 73 Itr 263 (Bom) & Other Decisions In Holding That The Relief Sought By The Appellant In Her Petition U/S. 154 Could Not Be Granted. Accordingly, It Is Prayed That This Honourable Court Allow The Appeal & Direct The Respondent To Cancel The Assessment Order Passed On 22-12-2019 Under Section 144 On The Inactive Pan.”

30/07/2012 vide Ack. no 44791734030072012 and said return should be considered as a return filed in response to the notice under Section 148. A copy of the ITR V was attached to the said letter. (Said letter and attachments are enclosed in pages 47 to 51 of the paper book ... 23/05/2019 and reiterating the same facts, which too has been placed in the paper book at page 54. 8. After responding to the notice under Section 148 in May 2019 both through email and also filing reply/letter across the counter at the office of the ld. AO, the assessee

Jivanlal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

from such parties. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid information, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 13/01/2014. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish all relevant evidence to establish that the goods

Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Mumbai vs. ITO International Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ito International Taxation, Vinay Parmanand Hariani Ward 2(2)(1), C/O. Chaturvedi Piyush & Co. Room No.1725, 17Th Floor, 3-D1, Court Chambers, Air India Building, Vs. New Marine Lines, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabph4179A Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chaturvedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

assessee is in receipt of substantial income and has also made substantial payments and has not filed his return of income and therefore, notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 1st June, 2021. Vinay Parmanand Hariani; A.Y. 2017-18 3. In response ... return of income. Pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal dated 4th May, 2022, further notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26th July, 2022, to file the return of income within 30 days. The assessee did not file

Dinesh Sunderji Shah, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

return of income of the assessee. The return filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2012-13, were not available. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30th March, 2019, in response to which assessee filed his return of income on 11th December, 2019, declaring ... penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the additional income offered by the assessee in return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act for concealment of income. After several notice issued to the assessee the assessee furnished the reply on 3rd March

Dinesh Sunderji Shah, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

return of income of the assessee. The return filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2012-13, were not available. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30th March, 2019, in response to which assessee filed his return of income on 11th December, 2019, declaring ... penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the additional income offered by the assessee in return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act for concealment of income. After several notice issued to the assessee the assessee furnished the reply on 3rd March

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

31st October, 2006, at a total income of ₹11,19,445/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 15th March, 2013, for the reason that during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10, that assessee ... gross receipt of the assessee is ₹7,28,78,932/- and therefore, it has resulted into an underassessment of income. Assessee responded to notice under Section 148 of the Act by letter dated 7th May, 2013, stating that the return filed on 31st October, 2006, may be treated as return

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

31st October, 2006, at a total income of ₹11,19,445/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 15th March, 2013, for the reason that during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10, that assessee ... gross receipt of the assessee is ₹7,28,78,932/- and therefore, it has resulted into an underassessment of income. Assessee responded to notice under Section 148 of the Act by letter dated 7th May, 2013, stating that the return filed on 31st October, 2006, may be treated as return

Takira Real Estate P Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer, Takira Real Estate P. Ltd. Ward 5(3)(1) 12/14, Gordhan Building No. Ii, 553-Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Girgaon S.O. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct9595N Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kothari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

company who did not file any return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27th March, 2019, wherein it was found that assessee has time deposit of ₹14,69,556/- and has also earned interest

Income Tax Officer, 25.1.1, Mumbai vs. J M Finacial Property Fund II, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1), J M Financial Property Fund Ii, 1St Floor, Room No. 115, Kautilya 141, Makers Chambers Iii, Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aabtj 0512 D Appellant Respondent

assessment and which, comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issu proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he ing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which accepted the contention ... income. If he intends to do so, a fresh ly to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would notice under section

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

148 of the Act had been done. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have dropped all other addition when, the issue on which Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued had been dropped. 2. On the facts and in law, the Notice issued under Section 148 ... appreciated, that proceeding under Section 246-251 of the Act are extension of the assessment proceeding. Hence, if the issue on which the Notice under Section 148 issued hence, other addition is also ought to be dropped. 4. On the facts and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

148 of the Act had been done. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have dropped all other addition when, the issue on which Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued had been dropped. 2. On the facts and in law, the Notice issued under Section 148 ... appreciated, that proceeding under Section 246-251 of the Act are extension of the assessment proceeding. Hence, if the issue on which the Notice under Section 148 issued hence, other addition is also ought to be dropped. 4. On the facts and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding