← All Phrases

“protective assessment”

MiscellaneousAssessmentAssessment441 judgments

The decision most relied on for protective assessment is Lalji Haridas v. ITO (43 ITR 387), cited in 238 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on protective assessment

Lalji Haridas v. ITO
43 ITR 387 · 1961 · Supreme Court
238
citing judgments

When an assessing authority is uncertain about the true ownership of funds or in whose hands income should be assessed, it can frame a protective assessment to safeguard the Revenue's interest. Such protective assessments remain valid until the substantive assessment is finalized.

CIT, Gujarat II v. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi
140 ITR 517 · 1983 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Protective assessments should not be deleted or disposed of by lower authorities, but rather allowed to remain in effect until the related substantive assessment proceedings attain finality before the High Court or Supreme Court.

DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
358 ITR 471 · 2013 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated solely for the purpose of making a protective addition. Such proceedings are not valid in the eyes of law.

Bhailal Manilal Patel v. CIT
49 Taxmann.com 539 · 2014 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on a protective assessment order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is impermissible without a substantive assessment order that finally adds income to the assessee's hands.

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore
128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.

(CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd.
104 ITR 655 · 1976 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A protective assessment is permissible when the assessing officer has doubt regarding who is in receipt of income, but a recovery based on a protective assessment is not allowed. If an assessment is intended to be protective, it must be clearly stated as such.

CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co.
178 ITR 451 · 1989 · High Court
28
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income cannot be levied when the assessment was made on a protective basis, especially if the income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was uncertain who had concealed the income.

Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT
39 SOT 514 · 2010 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A protective assessment cannot be made without a prior substantive assessment.

Judgments citing protective assessment

The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar vs. M/S 2D Enterprise, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 278/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Directors of the companies. These documents were never doubted by the Assessing Officer and in fact the addition is on the basis of protective assessment itself shows that the assessee has given all the documents related to the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The contentions

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 300/217 Taxman 116/358 ITR 471 held that where the Assessing Officer sought to make protective assessment by reopening an assessment on the ground that a contingency may arise in future resulting in escapement of income that would be wholly impermissible ... would amount to rewriting of the statutory provision. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment reads as under : 18. A protective assessment as the learned author indicates is regarded as being protective because it is an assessment which is made ex abundanti cautela where the department has a "doubt

Jt CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Central Circle – 3(1) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Mum/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 498/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani V. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

held that if the substantive assessment in the case of the assessee is struck down being barred by time, the additions made in the protective assessment cannot survive. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: “In the instant case, there was no dispute with regard to the facts that ... legal ground, the assessment order was quashed.” 6.8 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we hold that the protective assessment framed by the AO without making the substantive assessment is not sustainable. Hence, the assessee succeeds on this technical ground. As the assessee

Amadoroco Ltd, Cyprus vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1007/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Sh. Amit Sharma, Sumit JainFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

erred in passing the assessment order pursuant to the direction of Ld. CIT (International Taxation) by making the protective assessment in appellant case without making any substantive assessment and therefore the whole assessment proceedings is render nugatory. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in raising a demand of INR 3,94,43,650/- while framing a protective assessment vide order dated 30.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act without appreciating the fact that in view of Judicial pronouncement of Bombay High Court in the case

Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

ITA 282/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

case on behalf of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was a protective assessment order and, therefore, the Assessing Officer as such could not have passed an order to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Assessing Officer ... could not have levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of the protective assessment order. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the revenue ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala that, as such and so held and observed

Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

ITA 281/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

case on behalf of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was a protective assessment order and, therefore, the Assessing Officer as such could not have passed an order to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Assessing Officer ... could not have levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of the protective assessment order. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the revenue ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala that, as such and so held and observed

Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

ITA 280/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

case on behalf of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was a protective assessment order and, therefore, the Assessing Officer as such could not have passed an order to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Assessing Officer ... could not have levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of the protective assessment order. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the revenue ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala that, as such and so held and observed

Modernistic Attire (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

In the result, ground no. 7 to10 of the assessee’s appeal of the assessee are allowed and the aggregate addition of Rs

ITA 7669/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty
Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 234B

appeal before the Tribunal in both the AYs raising common grounds. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that in the hands of the assessee protective assessment has been made as revealed in para 7.1 of the Ld. AO’s order. Substantive assessment has been made in the hands of M/s. Orient ... work charges incurred by M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. through the assessee’s in those cases were genuine. The Ld. AR therefore argued that protective assessment in the case of the assessee also deserves to be deleted in both the AYs involved. 7. The Ld. DR did not advance any argument

Modernistic Attire (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

In the result, ground no. 7 to10 of the assessee’s appeal of the assessee are allowed and the aggregate addition of Rs

ITA 7668/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty
Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 234B

appeal before the Tribunal in both the AYs raising common grounds. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that in the hands of the assessee protective assessment has been made as revealed in para 7.1 of the Ld. AO’s order. Substantive assessment has been made in the hands of M/s. Orient ... work charges incurred by M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. through the assessee’s in those cases were genuine. The Ld. AR therefore argued that protective assessment in the case of the assessee also deserves to be deleted in both the AYs involved. 7. The Ld. DR did not advance any argument

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1415/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

grounds raised (supra), the Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the protective assessment made by the AO when the substantive addition has been made by AO in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and the same have been ... According to Ld. AR, since substantive addition made by AO has been confirmed by Tribunal in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, impugned protective assessment made in the hands of assessee be deleted and for such a preposition, cited various decisions of this Tribunal which will be discussed (infra

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1414/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

grounds raised (supra), the Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the protective assessment made by the AO when the substantive addition has been made by AO in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and the same have been ... According to Ld. AR, since substantive addition made by AO has been confirmed by Tribunal in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, impugned protective assessment made in the hands of assessee be deleted and for such a preposition, cited various decisions of this Tribunal which will be discussed (infra

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1413/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

grounds raised (supra), the Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the protective assessment made by the AO when the substantive addition has been made by AO in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and the same have been ... According to Ld. AR, since substantive addition made by AO has been confirmed by Tribunal in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, impugned protective assessment made in the hands of assessee be deleted and for such a preposition, cited various decisions of this Tribunal which will be discussed (infra

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1412/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

grounds raised (supra), the Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the protective assessment made by the AO when the substantive addition has been made by AO in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and the same have been ... According to Ld. AR, since substantive addition made by AO has been confirmed by Tribunal in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, impugned protective assessment made in the hands of assessee be deleted and for such a preposition, cited various decisions of this Tribunal which will be discussed (infra

Yash -V-Jewels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1411/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

grounds raised (supra), the Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the protective assessment made by the AO when the substantive addition has been made by AO in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and the same have been ... According to Ld. AR, since substantive addition made by AO has been confirmed by Tribunal in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, impugned protective assessment made in the hands of assessee be deleted and for such a preposition, cited various decisions of this Tribunal which will be discussed (infra

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1410/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

grounds raised (supra), the Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the protective assessment made by the AO when the substantive addition has been made by AO in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and the same have been ... According to Ld. AR, since substantive addition made by AO has been confirmed by Tribunal in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, impugned protective assessment made in the hands of assessee be deleted and for such a preposition, cited various decisions of this Tribunal which will be discussed (infra

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1409/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

grounds raised (supra), the Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the protective assessment made by the AO when the substantive addition has been made by AO in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and the same have been ... According to Ld. AR, since substantive addition made by AO has been confirmed by Tribunal in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, impugned protective assessment made in the hands of assessee be deleted and for such a preposition, cited various decisions of this Tribunal which will be discussed (infra

Mystuc Ekectribucs Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5867/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishikant Gandhi & VishnuFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

investment made in the shares of assessee company. A substantial addition has to be made in the hands of beneficiaries and only a protective assessment can be made in the hands of company like assessee. In this process, by any reason if the department is not able to tax beneficiary

Mukta Agriculture Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(CC)-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes respectively and both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5778/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishikant Gandhi & VishnuFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

investment made in the shares of assessee company. A substantial addition has to be made in the hands of beneficiaries and only a protective assessment can be made in the hands of company like assessee. In this process, by any reason if the department is not able to tax beneficiary

Hubtown Ltd, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), Mum

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69C

case as well as in Law, the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Mumbai has grossly erred in directing protective assessment of Rs.486,23,95,0007- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act with regards loan taken from M/s Ashok Commercial Enterprises. The Learned Commissioner ... Income Tax (Appeals) - 48 has erred in confirming the protective assessment directed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Mumbai. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Gauri Madan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1829/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Sh. Nagesh Behl, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

DCIT Vs. M/s. Nalimbur Suppliers (Pvt) Ltd (supra) we note that under almost identical situation it was held that it is well settled that protective assessment is permissible in law and in case of a doubt or ambiguity about real entity in whose hands a particular income ... assessed, the assessing authority is entitled to have recourse to make a protective assessment. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT vs. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi (supra) directed the Tribunal keeping it alive and pending awaiting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court till