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 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, DCIT CIRCLE , AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

189/- to the Assessee's income and held that the Assessee's case\nfell within the purview of Section 147 of the Act and. The AO's order was quashed\nby the Ld. CIT (A) as more than 4 years had elapsed before the reassessment

SHAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

189 4.2 Further, it may be appreciated that while reopening the case for reassessment under section 147 of the act the Assessing

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

189 (Punj. & Har). 9. In Sri. N. Govindaraju it was held that "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment is one aspect of the matter; if reason exists, the Assessing Officer can undoubtedly assess or reassess such income, for which there is such reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Further

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

189 (Punj. & Har). 9. In Sri. N. Govindaraju it was held that "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment is one aspect of the matter; if reason exists, the Assessing Officer can undoubtedly assess or reassess such income, for which there is such reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Further

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

section 151 of the Actand correspondingly, Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and when, the assessee seeksfor it. when, the assessee seeksfor it. He submitted

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

section 151 of the Actand correspondingly, Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and when, the assessee seeksfor it. when, the assessee seeksfor it. He submitted

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

section 151 of the Actand correspondingly, Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and when, the assessee seeksfor it. when, the assessee seeksfor it. He submitted

AAMYA RESOURCES LLP,ANDHERI EAST vs. ITO, WARD 24(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantvs. Ito, Ward 24(1)(1) Aamya Resources Llp Piramal Chamber, 1, Wilson House, Old Mumbai – 400012. Nagardas Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069. Pan/Gir No. Abcfa4651A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satish Aggarwal (Virtually Appear) Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 11.10.2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre / Cit(A), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. Although, Assessee Had Raised Number Of Grounds In The Present Appeal But At The Outset Ld. Ar Pressed Ground No.4 Which Is Legal In Question & It Goes To The Roots Of The Case. Therefore, We Have Decided To Adjudicate This Ground Firstly, Ground No. 4, Which Is Reproduced Herein Below:

reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

reassessment order the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income chargeable to tax. Subsequently, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the learned CIT (A) without any success. Order of learned CIT (A) was challenged before the co-ordinate

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

reassessment order the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income chargeable to tax. Subsequently, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the learned CIT (A) without any success. Order of learned CIT (A) was challenged before the co-ordinate

INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VIBGYOR TEXOTECH LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment\ncompleted under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act\") vide order dated 30.03.2016, the\ntotal income of the assessee was determined at 28,34,12,447/-,\nand penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were\ninitiated. The quantum matter travelled up to the Tribunal, and\npursuant

PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CIRCLE 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

reassessment proceeding as,\ntill today, no asset of M/s. Kanha& Co. has been distributed as provided in\nSec. 45(4) of the Act of 1961 and matter is pending and seized with Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Bombay under the Indian Arbitration Act. Hence, mere book\nentries unilaterally passed have no relevance unless there is distribution of the\nassets owned

KALA RAMESH PARMAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD- 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekala Ramesh Parmar Ito Ward – 23(2)(6), 2/21,Kishorebuilding, Room No.303, बनाम/ Opp Edward Cinema, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 521, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400002. Mumbai- 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6229M (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 28.1 The first proviso to section 147 is important. As per this proviso, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section

ACIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. INFRATECH BUILDERS AND AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs Infratech Builders & Agro Pvt. Tax Central Circle 7(2), Ltd. Mumbai 216 Shah & Nahar Industrial E, Room No.655, 6Th Floor Dr. E Moses Road Worli Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai 400018, Maharashtra Mumbai, Mumbai India, Mumbai Pan: Aabci7392B Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawalthis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Cit(A),- 49, Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1072911991(1) Mumbai Vide Order Dated 04.02.2025 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.12.2016 For A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are As Under: 1."On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Reopening Of The Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Infratech Builders & Agro Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law Without Considering The Fact That The Assess Had Failed To Provide 1 The Details Of Payments Made To M/S. Bovis India Pvt. Ltd. & M/S. Bovis Lend Lease India Pvt. Ltd. & No Service Tax Was Charged On The Payments Made To These Companies, Unlike Other Similar Payments.”

189 Taxman 21 (Bom) (e) Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd v ITO [2009] 178 Taxman 27 [Delhi] (f) Duli Chand Singhania v ACIT Haryana [2004] 136 Taxman 725 (Punj. & Haryana) 6. Considering the factual matrix discussed above and the judicial precedents, the reopening proceedings initiated by issuing notice under section 148 and the impugned reassessment

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