ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JASVINDER KALYAN SALUJA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

reopening, it was merely on the basis of ‘change of the opinion ‘change of the opinion,’ which is not permitted in law ’ which is not permitted in law therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja 8 ITA No. 1987/MUM/2024 & CO No. 82/MUM/2024 5.1 The Ld. Departmental

BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -LTU -1 , MUMBAI

In the result we find that in absence of tangible material, the reopening of assessment cannot be made

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Bajaj Auto Limited 2N D Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Income-Tax, Vs. 226, Nariman Point, Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2923M

reopening of the assessment as well as the addition and disallowance, both. Several other grounds were also raised on short credit of TDS

DCIT 14(20(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI HOME FINANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-14(2)(1),432, 4Th Floor, M/S Icici Home Finance Co. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, West Wing South Tower, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aaaci6285N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 81/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7223/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

reopened in the absence of any application of mind by the A.O, therefore, the reassessment proceedings were liable to be struck down on the said count itself. In order to buttress her aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the A.O had during the course of the original assessment proceedings raised queries in respect

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reopening of the assessment and therefore, contention of the contention of the assessee are liable to be rejected assessee are liable to be rejected. 12.3 We have heard rival submission o We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the f the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the contention raised by relevant

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reopening of the assessment and therefore, contention of the contention of the assessee are liable to be rejected assessee are liable to be rejected. 12.3 We have heard rival submission o We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the f the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the contention raised by relevant

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reopening of the assessment and therefore, contention of the contention of the assessee are liable to be rejected assessee are liable to be rejected. 12.3 We have heard rival submission o We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the f the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the contention raised by relevant

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reopening of the assessment and therefore, contention of the contention of the assessee are liable to be rejected assessee are liable to be rejected. 12.3 We have heard rival submission o We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the f the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the contention raised by relevant

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reopening of the assessment and therefore, contention of the contention of the assessee are liable to be rejected assessee are liable to be rejected. 12.3 We have heard rival submission o We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the f the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the contention raised by relevant

ASST CIT CC 1 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEY TECH, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

assessment cannot be reopened for the purpose of 'verification’, but can only be reopened if there is reason to believe that there is 'escapement of income’. Further, the Appellant had asserted that the intimation received from DIT (Inv.), Mumbai in the ease of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain doesn't constitute tangible information to reopen the case of the Appellant. Further

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Assessment Year 2012-2013 (ITA No.2845/Mum/2024) which is \ndirected against the Order, dated 20/03/2024, passed by the \nLearned CIT(A) whereby the appeal preferred by the Assessee \nagainst the Assessment Order, dated 27/12/2019, passed under \nSection 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was disposed off \nas partly allowed. Assessee has also filed Cross Objection (C.O. \nNo.97/Mum/2024

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reopening the assessment. 13. In the circumstances, respectfully following the above decisions, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the case, we hold that the C.O. No. 280/MUM/2018 M/s. AAA Technologies Pvt. Ltd., reassessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the A.Y. 2009-10 is null and void. Thus, the reassessment order is quashed. Since

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reopening the assessment. 13. In the circumstances, respectfully following the above decisions, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the case, we hold that the C.O. No. 280/MUM/2018 M/s. AAA Technologies Pvt. Ltd., reassessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the A.Y. 2009-10 is null and void. Thus, the reassessment order is quashed. Since

JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 4912/मुं/2013 ("न.व.2004-05) Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (Earlier Known As Johnson & Johnson Limited) 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai 400 060 Pan: Aaacj0866E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, 29Th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

Assessing Officer has clearly brought the fact to the notice of CIT that the reassessment proceedings are time barred on 31/03/2009 itself and hence, reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was not passed within time barring limit, the case cannot be opened again. For the sake of ready reference relevant extract of the aforesaid communication is reproduced herein

JAEE VISHWAS JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE-21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodjaee Vishwas Joshi Vs. Acit,Circle-21(1) 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan 1002, Om Co-Op.Housing Society Limited Bkc M.B.Raut Road Mumbai-400 051 Shivaji Park, Dadar Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aelpa7074L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

reopening of assessment in this case is on valid grounds and hence, the grounds taken by the assessee is rejected. 13. As regards, the issue involved on merits, we find that although, the assessee claims to have incurred business counseling expenditure with certain evidences, including bills submitted by the service provides, payment through banking channels and deductions of TDS

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

assessment years in relation to payments made to auto dealers\n(which has been supported by way of the orders specified in the\nabove table) has gone uncontroverted. It is admitted position\nthat IRDA is the insurance market regulator exercising\nregulatory/supervisory powers over the functioning of the\ngeneral insurance company including the Assessee. The Assessee\nhas placed on record

STANDARD CHARTERED INVESTMENTS & LOANS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7068/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

reopened assessment on the following reasons:- "During the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.32,51,57,000/- under the head " Provision for depreciation on investment" in its profit and loss account. It is seen from the balance sheet that the above provision is made on account of depreciation 3 I.T.A. No. 7068/Mum/2016 M/s Standard

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS of Rs.45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs.1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words “any amount” will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs.45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake of the character

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS of Rs.45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs.1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words “any amount” will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs.45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake of the character