SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section\n147 of the Act. In that case also the judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Ltd. (Supra)\ndealing with the interpretation of provisions contained in Section\n153A of the Act and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal

RAMESH PREMJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the IT Act dated 09.12.2019 assessing total income at Rs,3,46,93,780/- as against returned income of Rs.1,85,690/-,which was requested to be held as a in law as the same was liable to be quashed and cancelled as the assessment order

ACIT-27(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURJIT SINGH AMRIK SINGH SAINI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Raj Kumar Chauhan\Nita No. 4029/Mum/2024\N Assessment Year : 2016-17\Nacit-27(3),\N4Th Floor,\Nvashi Complex,\Nvashi Railway Station,\Nnavi Mumbai\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsurjit Singh Amrik Singh Saini,\Nsaini House, 176A,\Nstation, Avenue Road,\Nnear Post Office,\Nchembur,\Nmumbai\Npan : Alzps4719C\N(Respondent)\Nfor Assessee : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ca &\Nms. Vaishali More, Ca\Nfor Revenue: Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 05-12-2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 05-02-2025\Norder\Nper B.R. Baskaran, A.M :\Nthe Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order\Ndt.14-06-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax\N(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld.Cit(A)']\Nand It Relates To Ay. 2016-17. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Decision\Nof The Ld.Cit(A) In Holding That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') Is Not Valid & Further Holding That\Nthe Addition Made By The Ao U/S.2(22)(E) Of The Act Is Liable To Be\Ndeleted.\N2. The Facts Relating To The Case Are Stated In Brief. The Assessee Is\Nan Individual & He Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under\Nconsideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.94.42 Lakhs. The\Nassessment Was Completed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Accepting\Nthe Total Income Returned By The Assessee.\N2.

section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);\n(v) any distribution of shares pursuant to a demerger by the resulting company to the\nshareholders of the demerged company (whether or not there is a reduction of capital in\nthe demerged company).\nExplanation 1.—The expression \"accumulated profits\", wherever it occurs in this clause,\nshall not include capital

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section\n147 of the Act. In that case also the judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Ltd. (Supra)\ndealing with the interpretation of provisions contained in Section\n153A of the Act and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal

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

section 148A(b) providing opportunity to the assessee; under section 148A(b) providing opportunity to the assessee; thirdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass rdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass rdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass a speaking order under section 148A(d) determining whether

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C. Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D, the P a g e | 18 ITA No. 3331, 3332/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 Shri Amit Mangilal Jain cases

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)

reassessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion. We, however, may hasten to add that if 'reason to believe' of the Assessing Officer is founded onan information which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after the completion of assessment, it may be a sound foundation for exercising the power under section 147 read with section 148. 22

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)

reassessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion. We, however, may hasten to add that if 'reason to believe' of the Assessing Officer is founded onan information which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after the completion of assessment, it may be a sound foundation for exercising the power under section 147 read with section 148. 22

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)

reassessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion. We, however, may hasten to add that if 'reason to believe' of the Assessing Officer is founded onan information which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after the completion of assessment, it may be a sound foundation for exercising the power under section 147 read with section 148. 22

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)

reassessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion. We, however, may hasten to add that if 'reason to believe' of the Assessing Officer is founded onan information which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after the completion of assessment, it may be a sound foundation for exercising the power under section 147 read with section 148. 22

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non- \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section