SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

reopening the assessment of a particular assessment year and then the assessment of a particular assessment year and then the assessment of a particular assessment year and then initiating the penalty proceedings, it cannot be al initiating the penalty proceedings, it cannot be allowed to lowed to proceed mechanically to invoke the penal provisions. So proceed mechanically to invoke

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

reopening the assessment of a particular assessment year and then the assessment of a particular assessment year and then the assessment of a particular assessment year and then initiating the penalty proceedings, it cannot be al initiating the penalty proceedings, it cannot be allowed to lowed to proceed mechanically to invoke the penal provisions. So proceed mechanically to invoke

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

reopening the assessment of a particular assessment year and then the assessment of a particular assessment year and then the assessment of a particular assessment year and then initiating the penalty proceedings, it cannot be al initiating the penalty proceedings, it cannot be allowed to lowed to proceed mechanically to invoke the penal provisions. So proceed mechanically to invoke

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

reopening and notice u/s 148 of the Act. I proceed to decide the u/s 148 of the Act. I proceed to decide the issue on merits. issue on merits. 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

reopening and notice u/s 148 of the Act. I proceed to decide the u/s 148 of the Act. I proceed to decide the issue on merits. issue on merits. 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries

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

reopened the assessment by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 25.07.2022. During re-assessment u/s 148 of the Act on 25.07.2022. During u/s 148 of the Act on 25.07.2022. During proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee received that assessee received an advance of Rs.4,69,85,106/ an advance

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

reopening\nthe assessment of a particular assessment year and then\ninitiating the penalty proceedings, it cannot be allowed to\nproceed mechanically to invoke the penal provisions. So\ninitiating the penalty proceedings on the basis of void\nassessment order are not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nAssessee is well within his right to take this defence of\nchallenging the assessment

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

reopening\nthe assessment of a particular assessment year and then\ninitiating the penalty proceedings, it cannot be allowed to\nproceed mechanically to invoke the penal provisions. So\ninitiating the penalty proceedings on the basis of void\nassessment order are not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nAssessee is well within his right to take this defence of\nchallenging the assessment

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

assessment passed u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 by the the IT Act 1961 by the Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad in law and the reason assigned for doing so are in law and the reason assigned

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

assessment passed u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 by the the IT Act 1961 by the Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad in law and the reason assigned for doing so are in law and the reason assigned

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

assessment passed u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 by the the IT Act 1961 by the Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad in law and the reason assigned for doing so are in law and the reason assigned

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

assessment passed u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 by the the IT Act 1961 by the Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad in law and the reason assigned for doing so are in law and the reason assigned

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

assessment passed u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 by the the IT Act 1961 by the Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad in law and the reason assigned for doing so are in law and the reason assigned

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

assessment passed u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 by the the IT Act 1961 by the Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad in law and the reason assigned for doing so are in law and the reason assigned

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

assessment passed u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 by the the IT Act 1961 by the Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad Ld AO without appreciating that the reopening is bad in law and the reason assigned for doing so are in law and the reason assigned

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating judgment on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating judgment on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

reopening\nthe assessment of a particular assessment year and then\ninitiating the penalty proceedings, it cannot be allowed to\nproceed mechanically to invoke the penal provisions. So\ninitiating the penalty proceedings on the basis of void\nassessment order are not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nAssessee is well within his right to take this defence of\nchallenging the assessment