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

6 of the paper-book, which talks about Bhawarlal Jain Group and consequent search and survey action carried out by the Investigation Wing on 03.10.2013. Our attention was further invited to page 15 of the paper-book, containing a letter dated 05.01.2018, addressed to Meenakshi N Shah. The crux of the argument on behalf of the assessee is that

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

6) were issued to eight parties were returned back unserved by the postal department, with the remark, “not known”, “not traceable” and “Left” etc. The Ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from such parties with supporting evidences and also to produce for such verification, the assessee failed to do so. In this

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

6 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

6 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

6) were returned back unserved by the postal department, in this background, we shall analyze whether the Ld. Assessing Officer was right in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. 2.6. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it is our bounded duty to examine the validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, therefore, before adverting

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

206 (Kerala) even went to the extent so long as the AO has independently applied his mind to all the relevant aspect and has arrived to a belief the reopening cannot be said to be invalid. 2.4. We are aware that “mere change of opinion” cannot form the basis of reopening when the necessary facts were fully and truly disclosed

SHRI MOHAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the Assessee was reopened by issuance of notice dated 31.03.2014 u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, after recording necessary

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

206 (Kerala) even went to the extent so long as the AO has independently applied his mind to all the relevant aspect and has arrived to a belief the reopening cannot be said to be invalid. 2.4. We are aware that “mere change of opinion” cannot form the basis of reopening when the necessary facts were fully and truly disclosed

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

6) were returned back unserved by the postal department, in this background, I shall analyze whether the Ld. Assessing Officer was right in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. 2.2. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it is our bounded duty to examine the validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, therefore, before adverting

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

6) were returned back unserved by the postal department, in this background, I shall analyze whether the Ld. Assessing Officer was right in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. 2.2. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it is our bounded duty to examine the validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, therefore, before adverting

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

6) were returned back unserved by the postal department, in this background, I shall analyze whether the Ld. Assessing Officer was right in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. 2.2. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it is our bounded duty to examine the validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, therefore, before adverting

MITHALAL D MUTHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

6 Shri Mithalal D Mutha assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before