ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

260A of the IT Act by the Revenue. 33. The arguments, therefore, have been noted and from paragraphs 16, section 153A was analysed. 34. Mr. Pinto heavily relied on paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He also relied on paragraph 21 to contend that the Special Bench decision

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

260A of the IT Act by the Revenue. 33. The arguments, therefore, have been noted and from paragraphs 16, section 153A was analysed. 34. Mr. Pinto heavily relied on paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He also relied on paragraph 21 to contend that the Special Bench decision

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

260A of the IT Act by the Revenue. 33. The arguments, therefore, have been noted and from paragraphs 16, section 153A was analysed. 34. Mr. Pinto heavily relied on paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He also relied on paragraph 21 to contend that the Special Bench decision

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

reassess cannot be exercised on the basis of mere change of opinion. If all facts are available on record and a particular opinion is formed, then merely because there is change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer notice under sections 147 and 148 is not permissible. The powers under sections 147 and 148 cannot be exercised

M/S SINNAR THERMAL POWER LTD(FORMERLY RATTANINDIA NASIK POWER LTD) ,DELHI vs. DY CIT CC 6 (4) , MUMBAI

260A of the IT Act by the Revenue. 33. The arguments, therefore, have been noted and from paragraphs 16, section 153A was analysed. 34. Mr. Pinto heavily relied on paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He also relied on paragraph 21 to contend that the Special Bench decision

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M PALLONJI ENERPRISES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

260A against the said decision was s against the said decision was still pending before the till pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court?" Hon'ble Bombay High Court?" 4. . "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in . "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in . "Whether on the facts and circumstances

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of search under 132 or requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective order

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of search under 132 or requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective order

ACIT CC-3, THANE, THANE vs. PREMIER MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Premier Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-3, 3Rd Floor, D Wing Thane Vs Amerchand Mansion, 16 Madam Cama Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400039 (Pan : Aahcp1350N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi Advocate & Shri Pratik Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri R. A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year.” [emphasis supplied by us by underline] 8.2. Considering the undisputed facts on the chronology of events as tabulated above, second proviso to the section 153A, clarifications contained in para 65.5 of the above

K.B. J JEWELLERY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

reassessment proceedings either under Section 147(a) or 147(b) of the Act on the ground that that will be 'in consequence of information' in his possession in the shape of these two letters. The analogy commends application to these proceedings also. In these circumstances we find no scope for interference under Section 260A

BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

section 260A of the Act. Even otherwise, an order passed by the IT of the Act. Even otherwise, an order passed by the ITAT would not be AT would not be relevant when the validity of the re- assessment is being examined by this relevant when the validity of the re assessment is being examined by this Court

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

reassessment proceedings, it may be clearly seen that the AO nowhere raised any query regarding the genuineness of the transaction relating to the receipt of the aforesaid share premium to the extent of Rs. 32,21,48,679. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the comments of the AO in the Remand Report that the appellant did not furnish

KONARK FIXTURES LTD( SUCCESSOR TO KALINGA FIXTURES PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

260A of the Income Tax Act would\nnot at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out\nby the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT\nAppeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of\nthe Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the\nrecords. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA MOTORS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

reassessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 31 December 2007. Tribunal further observed that there was no scope left with the CIT(A) to enhance the very same items in the appellate proceedings pending before him against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the premise was that the interest

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GLINT INFRAPORJECTS P.LTD (KEYSTONE STOCKFIN PRIVATE LIMITED MERGED IN GLINT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment to 'D1 Limited, there would have been six different notices for the same assessment year, as in the present case. It is also noticed that the very same income has also been taxed in the hands of 'D' Limited.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) has observed

JCIT (OSD) CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI vs. KRUPA LAND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Krupa Land Limited Income Tax (Osd), Cc-39 11, B-Wing, Mittal Towers Mumbai Free Press Journal Marg R.No.32(1), Ground Floor Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aadck1521E Appellant) .. Respondent)

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.] 12. Before proceeding further let us also consider the provisions of Sec. 158BD as provided under Chapter XIVB which has become nonoperative M/s. Krupa Land Limited qua search etc. made after 31.5.2003.158BD-Undisclosed income of any other person. ―Where the Assessing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE 1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SAUDELA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

260A of the Act in the case before High Court on the issue vide ITAXL/1257/2O16 dated 14.09.2016. 6. Whether on the circumstances and facts of the case, the learned CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of preliminary expenses of Rs.48,11,076/- even though the assessee had incurred the expenses after the incorporation of the company and such

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAJNI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respagdeni, he CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the records. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been