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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. E I RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

125 taxmann.com 253]. The AR stated that, though the above decision was rendered in the context of the validity of notice issued under section 271(1)(c), the underlying legal principle regarding the necessity of a valid notice is equally applicable to reassessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

125 taxmann.com 253]. The AR stated that, though the above decision was rendered in the context of the validity of notice issued under section 271(1)(c), the underlying legal principle regarding the necessity of a valid notice is equally applicable to reassessment

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147 permits reassessment and not review as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(supra). According to the Hon'ble Court, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen provided there is tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. In the present

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147 permits reassessment and not review as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(supra). According to the Hon'ble Court, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen provided there is tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. In the present

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147 permits reassessment and not review as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(supra). According to the Hon'ble Court, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen provided there is tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. In the present

INDU MAHENDRA SHAH (L/H OF LATE SHRI MAHENDRA G. SHAH),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings which was initiated with a mechanical and invalid sanction granted u/s 151. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction merely relying on the basis of alleged information received without

MARK FOODS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 instead of issuing notice under section 153C of the Act. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction merely relying on the basis of alleged information received without

EI BENEFICARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

3230/Mum/2025 Govind

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

125 taxmann.com 253]. The AR stated that, though the above decision was rendered in the context of the validity of notice issued under section 271(1)(c), the underlying legal principle regarding the necessity of a valid notice is equally applicable to reassessment

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KAILASH MULCHAND KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 148 of the Act is dropped/withdrawn otherwise it is proceeded with further. In issues such as this, i.e. where jurisdictional issue is involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise.” 10. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in General Motors India

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act vide notice dated 04/03/2015 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the consequent re-assessment order dated 28/03/2016 stand quashed. Next we would take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 10. The appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 arises from common 11. order dated 06/02/2023

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order merely accepted the income as\ndeclared by the assessee in response to notice under section 148.\nThe alleged concealment, as computed by the Assessing Officer,\nis nothing but the difference between the originally returned loss\nand the revised loss. However, once the return filed under section\n148 has been accepted without further variation, there remains\nno addition

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

125 taxmann.com 253].\nThe AR stated that, though the above decision was rendered in the context of the validity of notice issued under section 271(1)(c), the underlying legal principle regarding the necessity of a valid notice is equally applicable to\n23\nITA No.3230/Mum/2025 & Others\nGovind Corporation & Others\nreassessment proceedings under section 148. Accordingly, the ratio laid down therein