DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

reopening assessment for assessment year 2006-2007 under Section 148 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order'). 3. The facts leading to the present petition are as under: (a) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of home finance. For the assessment year 2006-2007 (previous year ending on 31.03.2006), the Petitioner filed its return of income

LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

reopen assessment is the lack of co-relation between the payment received by the petitioner and the TDS certificate issued

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

TDS on advertisement and sales promotion are concerned leading to disallowance of the entire amount of Rs. 22.48 crores under Section 40(a)(ia) the same was also subject to scrutiny by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. In fact, the clause 17(f) of the tax audit report submitted alongwith return of income clearly brings out the fact

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAS & POWER INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1118/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Gas & Power The Ito, Ward 1(1)(4), बनाम/ Investment Co. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Asian Building, Mumbai-40 020 Ground Floor, 17, R. Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 3843J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Ishwer Rathi Shri Mahendra Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Miss Bharti Singh

Assessing Officer disallowed expenses of Rs. 13,07,890/- treating it as capital expenditure, disallowance u/s. 43B(e) in respect of interest to financial institutions and disallowance u/s. 40A(ia) for non deduction of TDS. 3.1. The assessee contended before the AO that the reopening

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

TDS amount before filing of return. 2.10. Now, question arises whether the Ld Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

TDS amount before filing of return. 2.10. Now, question arises whether the Ld Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment