SAMKIT SHASHIKANT SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -20 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dropping The Reassessment Proceedings.”

reassessment proceedings.” 3. The brief facts are that the assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y.2018-19 declaring total income of Rs. 50,02,670/-. Later on based on certain information received from DDIT(Inv) Unit-3, Surat that assessee has taken accommodation of bogus purchases from the following three parties:- Sr. No. Total Sales / Purchase Made during Information

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act is purely academic and calls for no adjudication.‖ 11.6. On perusal of above decision of the Tribunal, we find that identical issues stands decided in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act is purely academic and calls for no adjudication.‖ 11.6. On perusal of above decision of the Tribunal, we find that identical issues stands decided in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR, 20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANIL MONSHI SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, ground of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Acit, Circle – 20(1), Mumbai Anil Monshi Shah 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs 103, Sukh Castle, Bhandarkar Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Matunga East, Mumbai – 400019. Mumbai – 400012. [Pan: Aacps9726P] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

reassessment, the assessing officer issued notice under section 133(6) to Nazar Impex Private Ltd. Notice was served upon such party. Such party submitted required detail and disclosed that the sales by them is only of Rs. 18,06,234

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHREE THIRUMALAI MARKETING & INVESTMENTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

234/-. The return was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act, on 15.03.2016. Pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted on 14.02.2019 in the case of M/s Classic Marble Co. Pvt. Ltd., it was discovered that a sum of Rs.6,00,00,000/- had been advanced as a loan by the assessee. This amount was primarily sourced from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. SHREE THIRUMALAI MARKETING & INVESTMENTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

234/-. The return was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act, on 15.03.2016. Pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted on 14.02.2019 in the case of M/s Classic Marble Co. Pvt. Ltd., it was discovered that a sum of Rs.6,00,00,000/- had been advanced as a loan by the assessee. This amount was primarily sourced from

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

234 (SC)/[1976] 1 SCC 254 in the\nfollowing terms:\n\"5. The sense in which the word \"education\" has been used in section 2(15)\nis the instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for\nthe work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction\nwhich a person has received. The word \"education

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

234 (SC)/[1976] 1 SCC 254 in the\nfollowing terms:\n\"5. The sense in which the word \"education\" has been used in section 2(15)\nis the instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for\nthe work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction\nwhich a person has received. The word \"education

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings even after expiry of four\nyears from end of relevant assessment year was justified.\nSohar Siraj Lokhandwala V/s ACIT (1994) 77 Taxman 302 (Bombay\nHC)- Mere production of evidence before Assessing Officer is not\nenough and there may be an omission or failure on part of assessee\nto make a 'full' and 'true' disclosure if some material

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

reassessment proceedings even after expiry of four\nyears from end of relevant assessment year was justified.\nSohar Siraj Lokhandwala V/s ACIT (1994) 77 Taxman 302 (Bombay\nHC)- Mere production of evidence before Assessing Officer is not\nenough and there may be an omission or failure on part of assessee\nto make a 'full' and 'true' disclosure if some material

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

234 (Mumbai Trib) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay HC) Dr. Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT(A) (ITA Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/MUM/2023) Proposition 5: Reassessment to examine another facet of said issue is impermissible QX KPO Services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 467 (Gujarat HC) DCIT vs. Qx Kpo Services

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

234 (Mumbai Trib) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay HC) Dr. Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT(A) (ITA Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/MUM/2023) Proposition 5: Reassessment to examine another facet of said issue is impermissible QX KPO Services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 467 (Gujarat HC) DCIT vs. Qx Kpo Services

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 148 of the Act of even date was also issued. even date was also issued. 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) observed that extension granted by the Taxation

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 148 of the Act of even date was also issued. even date was also issued. 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) observed that extension granted by the Taxation

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 148 of the Act of even date was also issued. even date was also issued. 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) observed that extension granted by the Taxation

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 148 of the Act of even date was also issued. even date was also issued. 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) observed that extension granted by the Taxation

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BP COMTRADE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment order is liable to be quashed; 6. The Assessing Officer erred in relying on certain data and findings of the general investigation in unrelated cases. Neither has such material been shown to establish any connection with the case of the assessee nor was assessee given an opportunity to cross examine such material; 5 ITA No. 6643/MUM/202

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BP COMTRADE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment order is liable to be quashed; 6. The Assessing Officer erred in relying on certain data and findings of the general investigation in unrelated cases. Neither has such material been shown to establish any connection with the case of the assessee nor was assessee given an opportunity to cross examine such material; 5 ITA No. 6643/MUM/202