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

255 ITR 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

255 ITR 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

255 ITR 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 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.

reassessment proceedings had been initiated without any fresh material on record and 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

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

255 ITR 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

255 ITR 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

255 ITR 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

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL),-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order dated 09/12/2019. Hence, the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s.263 of the Act is hereby quashed. 13 M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd., 3.11. Even on merits, we find that the ld. PCIT had not conclusively stated as to whether the provision for foreseeable loss is an unascertained liability warranting to be added back while

M/S. BIOBUILD DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to 9 Assessment Year 2013-2014 his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148. This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1- 4-1989 and will

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

255 ITR 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

255 ITR 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

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