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

220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section

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

220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section

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

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section

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

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

220, 230 (P & H), where from the depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

220, 230 (P & H), where from the depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

220, 230 (P & H), where from the depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section

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

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT LTU-2, , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

reassessment proceedings against the assessee as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [236 ITR 34]. In the present case, specific tangible information came into the possession of Ld. AO which revealed possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more, in our opinion, was required at this stage. Undisputedly, once

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

220, 230 (P & H), where from the facts it was clear that the assessee had claimed depreciation in the return at the rate of 50 per cent and he had nowhere disputed the fact that the admissible rate of depreciation to him was 40 per cent., such fact alone was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under section

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty

PRAKASH FATANDAS JASSUJA,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(2), THANE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty