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

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

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 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

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

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

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

8 M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd., reopened by issuing a notice under sub-section (2) of section 22, the previous underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy

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

8 (MP) 7.8 In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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 147 and, therefore, such initiation was sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mrs. Rama Sinha v. CIT, (2002) 256 ITR 481, 483, 486, where the reassessment notice has been issued

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 147 and, therefore, such initiation was sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mrs. Rama Sinha v. CIT, (2002) 256 ITR 481, 483, 486, where the reassessment notice has been issued

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 147 and, therefore, such initiation was sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mrs. Rama Sinha v. CIT, (2002) 256 ITR 481, 483, 486, where the reassessment notice has been issued

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

8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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)

8. The crux of section 147 of the Act is the escapement of income which may be assessed or reassessed as well as any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section. Explanation 3 makes it clear that the Assessing Officer may assess

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

8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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

8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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

8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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

8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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

8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason