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

ABHUBHAI HIRABHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceeding and the consequential assessment order are non est and\ninvalid since in the facts and the circumstances of the case, no action\ncould have been taken u/s 147/148 of the Act as the assessment order\nwas based on seized materials for which only recourse available to the\nAO was the provisions of section 153C

ALBERT JOSEPH ROZARIO,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the assessee‟s objections were disposed off as not maintainable and addition made by the AO was held to be good in law. 6. Following the aforesaid directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, vide order dt. 30-12- 2024; wherein

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

section 189. 6 M.s Steecon Infrastructures 11. Further, the learned counsel submitted that in the case, for a moment, it is presumed that the Assessing Officer was not aware of the fact of dissolution but that is not relevant for deciding the legality of the notice as an illegal notice cannot be considered to be legal due to non-awareness

NIKHIL ASHOK SHIVDIKAR,PAREL MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20 2 4 MUMBAI , LALBAUG PAREL

Bench: him.

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act for the reasons that the Assessing Officer received certain information from the Director General of Income-tax (Investigation), Kolkatta about penny stock companies; and that the Assessee was one of the beneficiaries who has availed such bogus/accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gains arising from purchase/sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra

SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ( (Accountant Member)

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act for the reasons that the Assessing Officer received certain information from the Director General of Income-tax (Investigation), Kolkatta about penny stock companies; and that the Assessee was one of the beneficiaries who has availed such bogus/accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gains arising from purchase/sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra

MRS. RENU TIKAMDAS THARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings on the basis of Base Note and other information/details available with the Assessing Officer; approved the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) on merits of the addition and decline to interfere in the matter. Thus, confirming addition of INR 196,46,79,146/- made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant extract of the decision of the Tribunal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RISHABRAJ INFRA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 3246/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2015-16) Acit, C.Circle -2(1), Vs. Rishabraj Infrapvtltd., Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 212, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Bldg No. 3, Hari Om Mumbai – 400020. Plaza, Mg Road, Boravali (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcv2975P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Riddhi Mishra.Dr Revenue By : Mr.Karan Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

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

CITRON INFRAPROJECT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400005 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

196 Taxman 283/331 ITR 116 (All.) 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this appeal and other connected appeals which are, thus, dismissed.‖ SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors An SLP filed by the assessee against the judgment of the honourable allowable High Court has been dismissed by the honourable Supreme Court, which

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2)., MUMBAI vs. M/S CITRON INFRAPROJECTS LTD , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

196 Taxman 283/331 ITR 116 (All.) 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this appeal and other connected appeals which are, thus, dismissed.‖ SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors An SLP filed by the assessee against the judgment of the honourable allowable High Court has been dismissed by the honourable Supreme Court, which

SVP SOUTH WEST INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY, PLATINUM TEXTILE LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

196 Taxman 283/331 ITR 116 (All.) 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this appeal and other connected appeals which are, thus, dismissed.‖ SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors An SLP filed by the assessee against the judgment of the honourable allowable High Court has been dismissed by the honourable Supreme Court, which

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

196 Taxman 283/331 ITR 116 (All.) 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this appeal and other connected appeals which are, thus, dismissed.‖ SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors An SLP filed by the assessee against the judgment of the honourable allowable High Court has been dismissed by the honourable Supreme Court, which

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CITRON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

196 Taxman 283/331 ITR 116 (All.) 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this appeal and other connected appeals which are, thus, dismissed.‖ SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors An SLP filed by the assessee against the judgment of the honourable allowable High Court has been dismissed by the honourable Supreme Court, which