KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

191 Taxman 29 . The Division Bench considered a similar submission based on 13 Explanation 3 which was inserted in Section 147 by the Finance Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1/4/1989. Negativing the submission, the Division Bench held as follows: ...Where a reassessment

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

reassessment is valid if there is prima facie reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. AO is not required to believe that income has escaped assessment. AO is not required to believe that income has escaped assessment. AO is not required to conclusively prove escapement of income at the stage of to conclusively prove escapement of income

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

reassessment 68 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 or recomputation, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice under sub-section (1) of section 148 ; (iii) the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income

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

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

ACIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Samir Narain Bhojani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, Cc-3(4), Central Range-3, Mumbai Vs. St.Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Family Hospital, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400050 .. Appellant Respondent Co No.189/Mum/2015 (In Ita No.3814/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2006-07) Shri Samir Narain Bhojani Dy. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, Samir Complex, Tax, Cc-3(4), Central Range-3, St.Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Family Mumbai Vs. Hospital, Bandra(W), Mumbai- 400050 Pan No.Aabpb9150H Appellant .. Respondent

reassessment orders and determine the total income afresh for those assessment years. Thus, earlier assessment orders abate as the proceedings in which they are passed have no legal consequence was the argument. Once the notice under section 153A was issued and an assessment order passed pursuant thereto, it is that order which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

reassessment orders and determine the total income afresh for those assessment years. Thus, earlier assessment orders abate as the proceedings in which they are passed have no legal consequence was the argument. Once the notice under section 153A was issued and an assessment order passed pursuant thereto, it is that order which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

ACIT CC 24 & 26, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

reassessment orders and determine the total income afresh for those assessment years. Thus, earlier assessment orders abate as the proceedings in which they are passed have no legal consequence was the argument. Once the notice under section 153A was issued and an assessment order passed pursuant thereto, it is that order which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

reassessment orders and determine the total income afresh for those assessment years. Thus, earlier assessment orders abate as the proceedings in which they are passed have no legal consequence was the argument. Once the notice under section 153A was issued and an assessment order passed pursuant thereto, it is that order which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

reassessment orders and determine the total income afresh for those assessment years. Thus, earlier assessment orders abate as the proceedings in which they are passed have no legal consequence was the argument. Once the notice under section 153A was issued and an assessment order passed pursuant thereto, it is that order which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purposes of subsections (1) and (1A) of Section 201 of the said Act? 15 Upon perusal of the order impugned in this Appeal we are inclined to agree with Mr.Mistry. The bare and essential facts have already been noted by us above. The order of the Assessing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purposes of subsections (1) and (1A) of Section 201 of the said Act? 15 Upon perusal of the order impugned in this Appeal we are inclined to agree with Mr.Mistry. The bare and essential facts have already been noted by us above. The order of the Assessing

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purposes of subsections (1) and (1A) of Section 201 of the said Act? 15 Upon perusal of the order impugned in this Appeal we are inclined to agree with Mr.Mistry. The bare and essential facts have already been noted by us above. The order of the Assessing

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

reassessment proceedings. The requirement in such cases is that the information or material available should relate to material facts. The expression “material facts” means those facts which if taken into account would have an adverse effect on the assessee by a higher assessment of income than the one actually made. They should be proximate and not have a remote bearing

CLE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 147 of the Act authorizes the assessing officer to assess or reassess income that has escaped assessment if there is reason to believe it. He further stated that conclusive evidence at the time of reopening is not required to initiate reassessment proceeding. He also submitted that once the AO has recorded his reasons for reopening courts cannot go into

CLE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 147 of the Act authorizes the assessing officer to assess or reassess income that has escaped assessment if there is reason to believe it. He further stated that conclusive evidence at the time of reopening is not required to initiate reassessment proceeding. He also submitted that once the AO has recorded his reasons for reopening courts cannot go into