ACIT-27(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURJIT SINGH AMRIK SINGH SAINI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Raj Kumar Chauhan\Nita No. 4029/Mum/2024\N Assessment Year : 2016-17\Nacit-27(3),\N4Th Floor,\Nvashi Complex,\Nvashi Railway Station,\Nnavi Mumbai\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsurjit Singh Amrik Singh Saini,\Nsaini House, 176A,\Nstation, Avenue Road,\Nnear Post Office,\Nchembur,\Nmumbai\Npan : Alzps4719C\N(Respondent)\Nfor Assessee : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ca &\Nms. Vaishali More, Ca\Nfor Revenue: Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 05-12-2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 05-02-2025\Norder\Nper B.R. Baskaran, A.M :\Nthe Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order\Ndt.14-06-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax\N(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld.Cit(A)']\Nand It Relates To Ay. 2016-17. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Decision\Nof The Ld.Cit(A) In Holding That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') Is Not Valid & Further Holding That\Nthe Addition Made By The Ao U/S.2(22)(E) Of The Act Is Liable To Be\Ndeleted.\N2. The Facts Relating To The Case Are Stated In Brief. The Assessee Is\Nan Individual & He Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under\Nconsideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.94.42 Lakhs. The\Nassessment Was Completed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Accepting\Nthe Total Income Returned By The Assessee.\N2.

deemed dividend under sec.2(22)(e) of\nthe Act. He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the\nassessee by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble High\nCourt of Calcutta in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (supra)\nand also the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in\nthe case

RAMESH PREMJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the IT Act dated 09.12.2019 assessing total income at Rs,3,46,93,780/- as against returned income of Rs.1,85,690/-,which was requested to be held as a in law as the same was liable to be quashed and cancelled as the assessment order

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

deemed dividend. 6. Whereas on the contrary Ld. AR relied up the detailed submissions filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) and the same is reproduced herein below: "The Appellant filed his return of income originally for the aforesaid assessment year 2017-18 on 28.10.2017. The Appellant's case for the assessment year 2017- 18 was selected for scrutiny

AYAJ S. DHUMAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ajay S. Dhumal, Ito-26(2)(4), 229/230, Arun Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacpd 7035 Q Appellant Respondent

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act under section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assesse the hands of the assessee, but this was not disclosed in the original , but this was not disclosed in the original return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO), having recorded return of income. The Assessing Officer

JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

deemed dividend was not considered/discussed during the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. Further, we are of the considered view that the impugned reassessment

MR. AKBAR ABDULALI, PROP. FAIZ AND COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 17(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailakbar Humayun Abdulali, Prop. Faize & Company, Unit No.5, Alahi Baug, 75, Abdul Rehman Stree, ……………. Appellant Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400003 Pan: Aabps6866F

reassessment proceedings from the perusal of the balancesheet, it was observed that the assessee has received loans from the company in which it has a substantial shareholding. In order to verify the applicability of the deemed dividend

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

INFINITY CARS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT03 CENTRAL MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarinfinity Cars Private V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Limited, 12/A, 1St Floor, बनाम Income Tax– 03 Central, Lotus Cinema Bldg., Worli Mumbai, Room No. 441, 4 Th S.O. Mumbai - 400 018, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Maharashtra C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci5671H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

deemed dividend. Hence it cannot be the subject matter of addition in 153C proceedings in respect of completed assessments. We hold that when an addition could not be made as per law in section 153C proceedings, then the said order cannot be construed as erroneous warranting revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. This addition was made based on audited

M/S SAHAJ ANKUR DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 3 (4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

deemed dividend. However once it is not disputed by the revenue that the decision of this Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra) would apply to the present facts and also that there are no assessments pending on the time of the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. The occasion to consider the issues raised

M/S SAHAJ ANKUR DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 3 (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

deemed dividend. However once it is not disputed by the revenue that the decision of this Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra) would apply to the present facts and also that there are no assessments pending on the time of the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. The occasion to consider the issues raised

M/S SAHAJ ANKUR DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 3 (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

deemed dividend. However once it is not disputed by the revenue that the decision of this Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra) would apply to the present facts and also that there are no assessments pending on the time of the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. The occasion to consider the issues raised

VIRENDER SINGH ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UDAY ACHYUTH KAMATH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

deemed dividend of Rs. 3,48,99,462/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition for the reason that the assessee has preferred writ before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court against the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and that the Hon'ble High Court quashed the notice stating that the said notice was barred by limitation

SATISH SAWARMAL SARAF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed

deemed dividend. However once it is not\ndisputed by the revenue that the decision of this Court\nin Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva)\nLtd. (supra) would apply to the present facts and also that\nthere are no assessments pending on the time of the\ninitiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. The\noccasion to consider the issues raised

PRIYNAKA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 834 To 836/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the same survey action, the decision for A.Y. 2018-19 will apply mutatis mutandis to this year also. 14. Accordingly, revenue’s appeal against Ld. CIT(A)’s order granting relief of Rs. 2,16,61,358/- (by restricting the addition to 0.3% against 3% made