“reasons recorded”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 14813,127 judgments

The decision most relied on for reasons recorded is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332), cited in 695 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reasons recorded

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court

382

citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court

366

citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.

384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court

274

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if initiated based on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material, and if the sanction under section 151 is accorded mechanically, indicating non-application of mind.

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.

300 ITR 403 · 2008 · Supreme Court

268

citing judgments

The requirement of statutory prior approval by a high-ranking authority, even if administrative, serves as an in-built protection against arbitrary exercise of power by the Assessing Officer. While such approval need not record elaborate reasoning, the approving authority has a heavy duty to ensure it is not an empty ritual, fulfilling its purpose of supervisory control.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court

248

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

367 ITR 112 · 2014 · High Court

225

citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a specific satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, recorded prior to initiating proceedings, is a jurisdictional prerequisite, rendering its absence void. The approval function under Section 153D is administrative and does not require elaborate reasoning.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court

217

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

Judgments citing reasons recorded

M/S Prithvi Granities Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, grounds challenging re-assessment proceedings are dismissed

ITA 991/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Prithvi Granites Pvt.Ltd. No.196, 3Rd Phase, Bommasandra Indl. Area, Anekal Taluk Bangalore-560025. … Appellant Pa No.Aadcp 9920 C Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153

reason to believe that income got escaped assessment and the re- assessment proceedings were assumed merely on the basis of suspicion. From the reasons recorded, it is clear that the AO had information that no return of income has been filed for several assessment years and this fact goes

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 411/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147

routed through Profit & Loss account. 3. Sh. T. Banusekar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, further submitted that in response to the reasons recorded for the reopening of assessments, the assessee has filed a detailed objection on 04.07.2014 for the assessment year 2007-08 and on 4 I.T.A. Nos.410 & 411/Mds/16 ... representative, after serving notice under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was expected to give a copy of the reason recorded for reopening and the Assessing Officer thereafter has to consider the objection of the assessee and pass a speaking order. A copy of the order shall

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 410/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147

M/S Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., (Presently Known As Indev Developers Pvt. Ltd), Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 68

recording the reasons for reopening the assessment had not described the date and contents of the report received from Investigation Wing and that the reasons recorded were vague as it had nowhere stated the clear form and nature of transactions of accommodation entries whether in the form of loan ... gift or sale or purchase or share capital etc. It was further stated that the reasons recorded by the AO were totally silent with regard to the exact income of the bogus entry and transactions and that the AO did not mention that what were the facts mentioned

Anand Education Society, New Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 147

invoking the provision of Section 13(3) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee asked the copy of reasons recorded for issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act but the AO did not provide the same. Therefore, the proceeding in pursuant ... High Court in the case of Lalit Bagai Vs DCIT, WP(C) No.5054/2014 order dated 05.12.2014. 15. It was further submitted that the second reason recorded for reopening u/s 148 of the Act was that, the assessee had employed specified persons in violation of the Section

ADIT (E), New Delhi vs. Anand Education Society, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 147

M/S Lavitra Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2912/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA and Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Senior DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

following the binding decisions of Courts and Tribunals relied upon by the appellant for the fact that nothing was added out of reasons recorded and impugned orders cannot, therefore, be sustained both on facts and in law. 10. Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in upholding the illegal additions ... neither field any return of income nor opted to treat his return filed u/s 139(1) as reply to the notice. AO in the reasons recorded stated that there was some clerical mistake as certain single transactions were appearing in multiple resulting in working of the escaped income

DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result ITA No.2307/Kol/2013 is dismissed

ITA 2306/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna,,CIT,DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 288ASection 80I

notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2012 for passing an order of re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act to the assessee. The reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were as follows :- “In this case the assessee company had filed its return ... assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The following were the objections of the assessee in this regard :- (i) With regard to the first reason recorded by the AO for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, viz., alleged difference of Rs.75.32 lacs on account of Central Excise Duty Receivable

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 35Section 80Section 80I

Lupin Limited Officer whereby the Assessing Officer has recorded reasons for reopening which are reproduced as under :- “5. Reasons for reopening The reasons recorded by ACIT-10(1) for issuing notice u/s 148 are as below: “Assessee company filed their return of income on 28.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.49 ... Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). Further, it was argued by the Ld. DR that notice u/s 142(1) and copy of reasons recorded was 9 M/s. Lupin Limited given to the assessee on 29.9.2008 but even inspite of receipt of the copy of reasons recorded, the assessee

Procyon Offshore Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4951/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4951 & 4952/Mum/2012, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Dolphin Offshore Shipping Ltd. Acit, -5(1) Mumbai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Procycon Offshore Services P.Ltd.),Lic Bldg. Plot No.54, Vs. Sector-Ii,Cbd-Belapur-400 614. Pan:Aaacp 2682 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-Dr Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम िधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर िधिनयम िधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 20/04/2012, Of The Cit (A)-9,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising Various Grounds Of Appeals.Considering The Fact That The Issues Involved In Both The Cases Are Almost Identical, We Are Adjudicating Both Appeals By Single Order.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes & Assessed Incomes Etc., Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Assessment Dt. Assessed Cit(A) Order Dt. Income(Rs.) Income(Rs.) 2004-05 25.10.2004 Nil 24.12.2009 1,05,47,180/- 20.04.2012 2005-06 28.10.2005 Nil 24.12.2009 95,910/- 20.04.2012

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian-ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 37

should be treated as the returnfiled in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and requested the AO to supply the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment.As per the AO,assessee was furnished 1 4951-52/M/12-Procycon Offshore the copy of the recorded reasons,vide letter ... time of issue of reassessment notice,that the AO had correctly issued the notice, that he had given a copy of the reasons recorded to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.Thus, the FAA upheld the reopening.With regard to the claim of the assessee of depreciation of a vessel

Rajanikant C. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

brokerage to Mr. Chetan Shah in connection with purchase of Flat at 4th Floor in Vijaykunj at Ghatkopar by assessee, A.O. however, for the reasons recorded in the assessment order did not agree with the contention of the appellant and made addition u/s.69B. During the course of appellate proceedings objection

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vinod Chadha, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6709/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(1), Vs. Sh. Vinod Chadha, C/O- Moti Mahal New Delhi Restaurant, 3704, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aadpc9701H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 219/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 6709/Del/2013) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Vinod Chadha, C/O- Moti Mahal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(1), Restaurant, 3704, Netaji Subhash New Delhi Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aadpc9701H (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Naresh Chandra Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 18.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20/09/2013 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-Xxv, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs. 63,47,405/- Made On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. C.O. No. 219/Del/2014 2. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Not Appreciating The Prohibition Of Section 19(2) Of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 On The Opening Of Account By A Partner In His Own Name On Behalf Of The Firm, Which Is Further Not In Consonance With The Terms Of The Partnership Deed Of The Firm M/S. Moti Mahal Restaurant. 3. Whether Learned Cit(A) Is Correct In Not Appreciating That The Bank Account In The Assessee’S Individual Name Was Not The Bank Account Of The Firm M/S. Moti Mahal Restaurant, In Which The Assesse Was A Partner. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave For Reserving The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

Section 148Section 19(2)Section 69A

spite of the fact that the assessing officer clearly stated in his assessment order that the assessee has not filed any objection against the reasons recorded by him on the basis of which notice u/s 148 was issued. 2. Whether the assessing officer was required to dispose off the objections ... filed by the assessee against the reasons recorded by him before he start the assessment proceedings as per law separately by an speaking order. 3. Whether having acquiesced and participating in the assessment proceedings by the assessee, is too late for the appellant to argue that non disposal

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Lachhmandas U Talreja (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7644/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.7644 & 7645/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Ito-14(2)-3, Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) बनाम/ Earnest House, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 282, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahl 0990 E (राज"व/ Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6581 & 6582/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) Ito-14(2)-3, बनाम/ Earnest House, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 282, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahl 0990 E ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व/ Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidya "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshwala सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 11.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2004-05 & 2005-06, Preferred U/S. 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter). The Issues Arising Being (A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06) Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) Common, The Same Were Listed For Hearing & Were Accordingly Heard Together – The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Respective Cases Of The Parties Being Also The Same & Are Being Disposed Of Vide A Common, Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidya

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 253

years were reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on 28.3.2011 and 27.3.2012 respectively after obtaining approval from the competent authority, duly conveying the reasons recorded to the assessee. In the assessment proceedings, it was found by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) that the purchases from these parties were not reflected

Sh. Pradeep Vig, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3996/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.K.Bansal

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Adlakha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

four years could have been initiated by AO who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such AO that it is a fit case for the issuance of the notice. The Ld. AR before me submitted the copy ... case of CIT, Jabalpur vs. M/s. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd. dated 14.10.2014 in which while giving the approval on the reasons recorded by the AO. The Joint Commissioner while according sanction only stated that “ I am Satisfied”. The Hon’ble High Court on this took the view that

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5659/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

genuine since the similar claim for A.Y. 2009-10 was found to be not genuine. For the purpose of clarity, we extract hereunder the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) for A.Y. 2005-06: - “The reasons for reopening are as under: In this case the original return of income ... conditions laid down by the Act. Hence exemption claimed u/s 10A of the I.T. Act is allowed. " 5.1.2 In the impugned assessment order, the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment are as follows: "In this case the original return of income was filed on 30.10.2005 showing total income

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5658/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5657/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Unnosource Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 5656/MUM/2014[2005-006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-006

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil KumaranFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Luminant Investments Ltd ( Formelry Known As Luminant Investments P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Luminant Investments Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Radha Bhavan, 1St Floor, Tax, Central Circle-40, 121, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai 400 023 Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacl 0834 A .. Appellant Respondent

Section 11(4)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

business of trading in shares and securities. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 (1) of the Act dated 21-12-2009 was issued for the reasons recorded by the AO u/s 148 of the Act, which reads as under:- “Reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) before issue of notice ... gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee after drew our attention to the reasons recorded and stated that the re-opening is based on change of opinion. For these arguments, he drew our attention to the accounts

Kashan Ghaswala, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8126/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not giving a copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment u/s.147 and for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The appellant submits that the assessment order passed ... without giving a copy of reasons recorded is not a valid assessment and therefore the same ought to be cancelled. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) read with section