DY CIT CC 6(4) , MUMBAI vs. SMT. DEVAL D THAKKAR [NOW KNOWN AS SMT DEVAL E ANTHONY], MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

150. It is submitted that the provision contained in sub-section (2) of section150 is in the nature of clarification or Explanation to sub section (1).Sub-section (2) makes it clear that the embarge of period of limitation lifted under sub section (1) for proposed reassessments

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. erred in filing appeals without complying with the regulations and with defect and filed multiple appeals with the same grounds as raised for the present appeal, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. erred in filing appeals without complying with the regulations and with defect and filed multiple appeals with the same grounds as raised for the present appeal, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. erred in filing appeals without complying with the regulations and with defect and filed multiple appeals with the same grounds as raised for the present appeal, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

1) of section 245M, the period of limitation available under this section to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub- section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

1) of section 245M, the period of limitation available under this section to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub- section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

1.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

150 Non-Resident Not applicable 2003-04 2002-03 159 Non-Resident Not applicable 2004-05 2003-04 162 Non-Resident Not applicable 2005-06 2004-05 174 Non-Resident Not applicable 2006-07 2005-06 209 Resident Yes resident but not ordinary resident (refer note (ii) 2007-08 2006-07 96 Non-Resident Not applicable

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

1) of the Act and no notice for reassessment can be issued u/s 148. Now on the facts of the present case, it is seen that the evidences found during the course of search and seizure operation in the case of the assessee and M/s Evergreen 23 I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 Mr. Nilesh Bharani Enterprises, wherein assessee was a partner that

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AWADHNARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN SINGH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

150(1) could not be used to circumvent the statutory bar limitation where the earlier appellate order did not concern AY 2003-04. Since limitation under section 149(1)(b) expired on 31.03.2010, the reassessment

DCIT 27(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. GANGA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shripavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit 27(1) R No.406, 4Th Floor, Tower M/S Ganga Developers Plot No. 219, Alal Asia, No.6, 11Th Road, Chembur, Vashi Railway Stn Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaafg 8230 C Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022

section 150(1) will operate to lift the time bar in cases where the reassessment is initiated under section 148 to give

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

150; [(ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel]] [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA];] [(bb) an order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section 154 or section

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

1) is issued or time for issue of notice u/s.143(2) has elapsed, will not abate because no assessment is pending. A Search is not conducted to initiate reassessment but for finding undisclosed income, undisclosed property or undisclosed books of accounts/documents. Therefore, in relation to completed assessments, additions have to be made on the basis of incriminating document found

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

150, (2019) 111 Taxmann.com 494(Kar). In this decision the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held quoting from the head notes that--- No-doubt DRP panel consists of three Commissioners and Principal Commissioner examining or sitting over decision of the DRP may not be appropriate. At the same time, one cannot lose sight off, of a statutory provision like

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails