“Section 149(1)(c)”

ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SKA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment amounts to one lakh rupees or more for that year. 1.4 As per the unamended section 149(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 16 years from the end of the relevant AY if income

SKA SALES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICSR, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

income chargeable to tax\nthat has escaped assessment amounts to one lakh rupees or more\nfor that year.\n1.4 As per the unamended section 149(1)(c) of the Act of 1961,\nthe reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 16 years\nfrom the end of the relevant AY if income

JAWAHARLAL GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014 2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the 1. T. Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular ... liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014. 2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular

SHAM GULABRAI TULSYANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014\n2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the 1. T. Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular ... liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014.\n2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular

NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014 2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the 1. T. Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular ... liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014. 2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular

NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014 2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the 1. T. Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular ... liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014. 2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular

PARTAB GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014 2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the 1. T. Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular ... liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014. 2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular

PARTAB GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014\n\n2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the I. T. Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular ... dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014.\n\n2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2012 dated

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - CIRCLE 41-1-1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Assessee for a number of assessment years within the time limit of 16 years from the end of relevant previous year prescribed in Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer 1 Part of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025 C.O.No.260, 267,270, 272, 261, 269/Mum/2024 Assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Assessee for a number of assessment years within the time\nlimit of 16 years from the end of relevant previous year\nprescribed in Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer\n1\nPart of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025\n4\nITA

DCIT 41.1.1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Assessee for a number of assessment years within the time\nlimit of 16 years from the end of relevant previous year\nprescribed in Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer\n1\nPart of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025\n4\nITA ... additional evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the same income should not be taxed in the hands of two assessees.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "149(1)(c)", "143(3)", "147", "271(1)(c)", "250", "46A" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Assessee for a number of assessment years within the time limit of 16 years from the end of relevant previous year prescribed in Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer 1 Part of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025 C.O.No.260, 267,270, 272, 261, 269/Mum/2024 Assessment

DCIT 41.1.1, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, MUMB vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Assessee for a number of assessment years within the time\nlimit of 16 years from the end of relevant previous year\nprescribed in Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer\n1 Part of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025\n4\nhad formed a belief that income liable

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Assessee for a number of assessment years within the time limit of 16 years from the end of relevant previous year prescribed in Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer 1 Part of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025 C.O.No.260, 267,270, 272, 261, 269/Mum/2024 Assessment

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUKESH D AMBANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Before us the ld. Counsel submitted that reopening of assessment from A.Y. 2001-02 to A.Y. 2005-06 was time barred as section 149(1)(c) could not be applied to the assessment which had attained finality before the date of operation of clause (c) i.e. 01.07.2012. The ld. Counsel

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUKESH D AMBANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Before us the ld. Counsel submitted that reopening of assessment from A.Y. 2001-02 to A.Y. 2005-06 was time barred as section 149(1)(c) could not be applied to the assessment which had attained finality before the date of operation of clause (c) i.e. 01.07.2012. The ld. Counsel

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUKESH D AMBANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUKESH D AMBANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Before us the ld. Counsel submitted that reopening of assessment from A.Y. 2001-02 to A.Y. 2005-06 was time barred as section 149(1)(c) could not be applied to the assessment which had attained finality before the date of operation of clause (c) i.e. 01.07.2012. The ld. Counsel

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUKESH D AMBANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed

Counsel submitted that reopening of assessment from A. Y.\n2001-02 to A.Υ. 2005-06 was time barred as section 149(1)(c) could not be\napplied to the assessment which had attained finality before the date of operation\nof clause (c) i.e. 01.07.2012. The ld. Counsel has also

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUKESH D AMBANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Before us the ld. Counsel submitted that reopening of assessment from A.Y. 2001-02 to A.Y. 2005-06 was time barred as section 149(1)(c) could not be applied to the assessment which had attained finality before the date of operation of clause (c) i.e. 01.07.2012. The ld. Counsel