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

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

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

189-194 Commr. Of Income-tax 49 Taxmann.com Bombay Vs. MurliAgro 172 High Court Products Ltd. 195-212 Nikki Agarwal vs. Asst. ITA Mumbai 15. Commissioner of No.879/M/2011 ITAT Income Tax 16. 387 ITR 529 (2017) Gujrat High 213-227 PCIT-4 Vs. Saumya 17. 83 Taxmann.com 228-240 Smt. Yamini Agarwal Kolkata 209 (2017) vs. Deputy Commr. Of ITAT

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

section 143(3) of the said Act was passed after the respondent had made ad hoc claim for expenditure at 30 per cent. of the professional receipts in the revised return of income which was later withdrawn. In fact the reasons for reopening the assessment for the year 2002-03 itself records that the claim of 30 per cent

M/S. STEECON INFRASTRUCTURE ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment order or the notice can be issued on firm name or firm PAN which was already dissolved. He further referred to subsection 4 of section 189 and submitted that said subsection clarifies the position as laid down in subsection 1, where the Assessing Officer is required to commence or conclude the assessment against the persons referred to in subsection

OLEANDER FARMS P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Transfer Of File To The Ao Of The Assessee. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation

ABHISHEK LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re- opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3) ERSTWHILE CE CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation

MANJULA MANGALPRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3)(ERSTWHILE CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation

MANJULA MANGALPRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3)(ERSTWHILE CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation

MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3) ERSTWHILE CE CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation

MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3) ERSTWHILE CE CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3456,3457&3458/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha, 412, 4Th Floor, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpl 6198F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3465 &3466 /Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Manjula Mangalprabhat Lodha, 412, Dcit, Central Circle -7(3), Room बिधम/ 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, No.655, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpl 5846 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P. Singh सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I.T. Act ,1961. 2 Ita No.3456,57&58/M/15 (A.Y. 2008-11) Mangal Prabhat Lodha Vs. Dcit

3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice under section 143(2), re-opening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the revenue that as the return was processed under section 143(1), it was a mere intimation