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)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

M/S. SOHAM ESTATE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1, THANE

reassessment order, dated 25/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 147/148 of the Act is bad in law. In this regard, the Ld. Senior Counsel placing reliance on the following judgments: 1. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2003) 259

M/S. STEECON INFRASTRUCTURE ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

259 ITR 19 has laid down a detailed procedure to be followed in reassessment proceeding. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), after issue of notice under section

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 4 raised by the Assessee is allowed while all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

259 ITR 19 (SC) 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, and in the alternative, it is submitted that in view of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act and in view of absence of a categorical finding either in the reasons recorded or in the assessment order, that the appellant has failed to disclose fully and truly

MR. KAMAL JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(3) C B CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmr. Kamal Jajoo Vs. Dcit, Cc 4(3) Flat No. 2/B Jai Hind Estate Cb Central Range -4 Ld.Dr. Am Road. Air India Bldg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. Abvpj3150A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal Revenue By Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 14.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Drawn Our Attention To The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Seeking Admission Of 2 Mr. Kamal Jajoo., Mumbai

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In the present case, the Ld.A.O. failed to follow the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 259

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KAILASH MULCHAND KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

259 ITR 19)] and rendering the reassessment order void ab initio. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee filed his original return of income under Section

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

259 ITR 19 (SC), would get reduced to an empty formality. 5.7. In view of the above, we hold that the reasons recorded fail to satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act and therefore, the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate ITA No.787-790/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2013-14 reassessment

CORAL VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 147 of the Act. Hence the entire Reassessment proceedings are liable to be annulled and quashed. proceedings are liable to be annulled and quashed. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(3) which was completed on 01.03.2011, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee called for document and details which were furnished and the Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction in the assessment order dated 01.03.2011. Therefore, it was contended that on the very same facts, reopening could not have been done. (2003) 259

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(3) which was completed on 01.03.2011, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee called for document and details which were furnished and the Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction in the assessment order dated 01.03.2011. Therefore, it was contended that on the very same facts, reopening could not have been done. (2003) 259

VANPOOL CONSULTING AND ADVISORY PVT LTD., ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevanpool Consulting & Advisory Pvt., Ltd., V. Dcit – Cc – 1(2) 1501, Orient Height Room No. 906, Ninth Floor Rajaram Mohanrai Road Pratishtha Building, M.K. Road Grant Road (E), Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacv2355C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.V. Desai Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

259 ITR 19]. Page 9 of 13 Vanpool Consulting and Advisory Pvt., Ltd., 10. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the case of the assessee was earlier selected for assessment under section 143(3) and also reassessment

AMISH ANANTRAI MODI,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, not on the same footing as the earlier addition on alleged bogus long- term capital gains, but this time by shifting the very axis of the addition, seeking to disallow the cost of acquisition of the shares, 3 Amish Anantrai Modi i.e., the purchase cost, thereby attempting to indirectly revive what stood

M/S. PANTIME FINANCE CO. P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings to the ld. AO, the assessee had thought it fit to raise the legal ground in the present appellate proceedings before us. We find lot of force in this argument of the ld. AR. The law is very well settled that the legal issue which goes to the root of the matter could be raised