NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

14. The interplay of Sections 143 (2) and 148 of the Act formed the subject matter of at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court. In CIT v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All.) it was held that a plain reading of Section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

14. The interplay of Sections 143 (2) and 148 of the Act formed the subject matter of at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court. In CIT v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All.) it was held that a plain reading of Section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

14. The interplay of Sections 143 (2) and 148 of the Act formed the subject matter of at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court. In CIT v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All.) it was held that a plain reading of Section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall

ASGAR MOHAMMED HUSSAIN GHADIALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

14. The interplay of Sections 143 (2) and 148 of the Act formed the subject matter of at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court. In CIT v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All.) it was held that a plain reading of Section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

iii) of the judgment has laid down the dictum that in case of any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and other material available with the AO including the income declared

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

14. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it is in two parts. First limb of the provision says, the Assessing Officer would include ACIT or DCJT or Asstt. Director or Dy. Director or the Income Tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of direction or orders issued under sub-section

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

14. On perusal of the above, it is clear that the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has held that an intimation issued under Section 11 Assessment Years: 2017-18 143(1) of the Act constitutes an order which can be subjected to revision under Section 263 of the Act. 15. The next issue that arises for consideration is that whether

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

2(22)(a) of the Act in the hands of the members of Shroff family and brought to tax under section 115-O of the Act in the hands of Bloom Packaging and Uniphos International by the CIT(A) was deleted. 20. For submission of ld. Special Counsel that order of Tribunal in case Ultima was based on different fact

SHUMBHLAXMI DYETEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Ld. Cit(A). Thus Assessee Request To Raise This Legal Point As Additional Ground.

14 I.T.A. No. 3256/Mum/2017 ShubhlaxmiDyetex Pvt. Ltd. Act provides a deeming fiction. The deeming fiction is to the effect that once the assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any enquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under the provisions of the Act, which is required to be served

CNI RESEARCH LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Cni Research Ltd. Dcit-5(1), A/12 Gokul Arcade, Mumbai बनाम/ Sahar Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai-400057 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaccc2842H

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 2.5. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

14 Rakesh Kothotia, Mumbai. loan inclusive of interest, (earlier availed by it from Authum under duly executed agreements between them) and remaining outstanding as on 30.11.2016; and 1. for the reasons discussed under (iii) hereinabove, it is suffice to submit that receipt back of loan receivable from Khazana is nothing but receipt of own funds by Authum (earlier advanced

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

14. The assessments in consideration before us consideration before us are for assessment years s 2010-11 and 2012-13, which are prior to the death of the assessee Shri which are prior to the death of the assessee Shri which are prior to the death of the assessee Shri Vandravan P. Shah and therefore, under the provisions of section

SHAPOORJI PALLANJI AND COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 3.5. Section 14A of the Act postulates and states that no deduction shall be allowed in respect

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed

GLOBAL BUSINESS CONEXXTIONS PVT.LTD.,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the Appellant 11. on the ground that income liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer made addition of INR 11,83,73,433/- under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act which was confirmed

INDUCTO STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Inducto Steel Ltd. Acit, 156, Maker Chamber Vi, Cc-38, बनाम/ 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci1045E

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 2.6. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 3.4. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers

MUKAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukund Limited V. Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor M.K. Road 226 Nariman Point New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department By : Shri Ajay K. Ojha

14] submits that it is mandatory requirement for initiation of assessment proceedings to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and in the absence of issue of notice u/s.143(2) the assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is invalid and void ab-initio. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

iii) excess depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers and reassessment order passed on 28.03.2002. Subsequently, on 29.03.2004, the Commissioner passed order under Section 263 of the Act taking a view that part of the assessment order relating lease equalization fund was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Identical submissions, as made by the parties before us, were made