“reasons recorded”

Concorde Motors (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh.Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The Acit, Circle-(Osd)-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacm 0154 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम 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 Order Dt. 04.10.2012 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Servicing & Maintenance Of Vehicles, Filed Its Return Of Income 05.01.2006, Declaring Total Income At Nil .The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 3.12.2008,Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.58,53, 770/-.

First Ground of appeal deals with validity of reassessment proceedings. We find that the AO had reopened the case after recording the reasons.The reasons recorded by him read as under: (i)During the F.Y.1999-2000 (A.Y. 2000-01) all the shares of the company were acquired by M/s. TELCO Ltd. Consequent ... proceedings, that the AO was justified in reopening the assessment. 4.During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) referred to the reasons recorded by the AO and stated that both the issues mentioned in the reasons were dealt with extensively by the AO while passing the original

The Pancharatna Co Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh Rajendra & Sh Pawan Singh

held by this court in Hindustan Lever Ltd versus RB Wadkar (268 ITR 322), that the reopening notice stands or falls by the reasons recorded at the time of reopening notice is issued. It is not permissible to edit further reasons to those recorded while issuing of the reopening notice

Asst CIT CC 43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Against the said order of Ld. CIT(A) appeal was filed before ITAT and ITAT directed the AO to furnish the copies of reasons recorded for reopening of the case so that the assessee may be able to raise objection and then to proceed to assess the assessee

Bhavani Gems, Mumbai vs. DCIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6436 & 6437/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems, Dy. Cit-16(3), बनाम/ 101, Prasad Chambers, Mumbai M. P. Marg, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafb 2302 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Sandeep Goel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2006-07 & 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) & 143 R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Common Grievance In Both The Years Pertain To Decline Of Claim Of Additional Depreciation. In The A.Y. 2006-07, Scrutiny Assessment Was Framed U/S.143(3), Wherein After Calling Details Of Plant & Machinery So Installed During The Year, The Assessing Officer Has Allowed The Assessee’S Claim Of Additional Deprecation. Thereafter The (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems Vs. Dy. Cit Assessment Was Reopended On The Plea That As Per The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gem India Mfg. Co. [2001] 249 Itr 307 (Sc), Cutting & Polishing Of Diamonds Did Not Amount To Manufacture/Production. Accordingly, Additional Deprecation Was Disallowed & The Order Of Ao Was Confirmed By The Cit(A).

years under consideration. 10. Insofar as the reopening of assessment for the A.Y. 2006-07 is concerned, we find that as per the reasons recorded, the A.O. has correctly reopened the completed assessment. Accordingly, the ground taken by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2193/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Idbi Bank Ltd. Asst. Cit, Large Tax Payers Unit, बनाम/ 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Wtc Complex, Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, 7Th Floor, Taxation Cell, Cuffee Parade, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Vs. Mumbai-400 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1105 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Satish Modi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. C. S. Naik & Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnoo सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 16.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai Dated 12.12.2012 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2004-05, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In The Ground So Raised, The Assessee Is Aggrieved For Reopening As Well As Merit Of The Disallowance Made U/S. 14A While Computing Book Profit U/S.115Jb Of The Act. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved For Interest Levied U/S. 234D Of The Act.

there is any failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material fact. Further more in one of the reasons recorded for A.Y. 2004-05 regarding the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of taxes on MICR payment ... shows that there is complete non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for reopening the assessment. While recording the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has to specify, which material fact has not been disclosed by the assessee. Hence in the instant case reopening itself

Micro Solutions (I) P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 1, Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

examined all the details submitted by the assessee including depreciation claimed a part of which is the subject matter of re–opening as per reasons recorded. Learned Authorised Representative referring to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act submitted, the very fact that the Assessing Officer ... assessment no re–opening under section 147 can be made. He submitted, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer either in the reasons recorded or in the re–assessment order that alleged escapement of income on account of excess depreciation allowed to the assessee was as a result

Pooja Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg: (A.Y : 2006-07) M/S. Pooja Developers Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1)(2), 513, Samartha Plaza, Rrt Road, Mumbai Mulund, Mumbai 400 081. (Respondent) Pan : Aaifp5595M (Appellant)

Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice : Provided that, after the expiry of four years from ... year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice” 9. Factually speaking, in the present case

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Jnj Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Assessing Officer and the ld.counsel relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) and also drew our attention on the copy of reasons recorded which is enclosed in the paper book and contended that in this case reopening was bad in law. The reopening is bad being barred by limitation ... that assessment year. For the purpose of examining the validity of the reopening vis-a-vis aforesaid proviso we need to first examine the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are reproduced below: “On perusal of case records it is noted that

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. ADIT 1(1)

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

chargeable to tax in India, the assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 by issuance of notice dated 25.03.2011 under section 148. The “reasons recorded” for reopening the assessment reads as under:- “The e-return of income in the case was furnished on 29.09.2008 disclosing a total income ... Therefore notice u/s 148 is issued to the assessee”. 6. Mr. Pardiwala submitted that from the perusal of the “reasons recorded”, it can be seen that, AO in the first part highlights the scope of the contract work and draws a presumption that, assessee remains responsible for the execution

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. ADIT 1(1)

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

chargeable to tax in India, the assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 by issuance of notice dated 25.03.2011 under section 148. The “reasons recorded” for reopening the assessment reads as under:- “The e-return of income in the case was furnished on 29.09.2008 disclosing a total income ... Therefore notice u/s 148 is issued to the assessee”. 6. Mr. Pardiwala submitted that from the perusal of the “reasons recorded”, it can be seen that, AO in the first part highlights the scope of the contract work and draws a presumption that, assessee remains responsible for the execution