DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275(1)(c) of the Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. 9. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. Reported in (2024) 159 taxmann.com

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

275(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six\nmonths from the end of the month in which the penalty\nproceedings were initiated by the AO.\n9. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in\nthe case of PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. Reported in (2024)\n159 taxmann.com

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX vs. DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

275(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six\nmonths from the end of the month in which the penalty\nproceedings were initiated by the AO.\n9. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in\nthe case of PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. Reported in (2024)\n159 taxmann.com

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections [***] [except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA

ALRAMEEZ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

275. 3. We have gone through the order of AO imposing penalty u/s 270A, order of Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds of 4 M/s Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. appeal taken. It is observed that quantum addition in the case of the assessee was made u/s 43CA r.w.s. 56 (2) (x) i.e. deeming sections. For ready

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the assessee Cross Objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Savita Oil Of Income Tax-Cc-8(4) Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 66-67, 658, Aayakarbhavan, Narimanbhawan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai- 400 021 Pan No.Aaacs7934A Appellant Respondent

Section 275 (1) (a) to urge that against reassessment order dated 18.3.1970, on 9 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. ITA No.2323/MUM/2017

DCIT- CIR- 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IMPERIAL PROCUREMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

275/- towards corresponding TDS income. The assessee before CIT(A) challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act contending that the assessment having completed originally under section 143(3) of the Act and reopening after the lapse of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and further there

DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. ASIA INVESTMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2003-04

275 of the Act. This is a case where the relevant assessment order was the subject matter of an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) under section 246 or section 246A(a) and an appeal to the appellate Tribunal under section 253 of the Act and an order imposing penalty is passed before the order of the ITAT was received

ASIA INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2003-04

275 of the Act. This is a case where the relevant assessment order was the subject matter of an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) under section 246 or section 246A(a) and an appeal to the appellate Tribunal under section 253 of the Act and an order imposing penalty is passed before the order of the ITAT was received

ASIA INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2003-04

275 of the Act. This is a case where the relevant assessment order was the subject matter of an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) under section 246 or section 246A(a) and an appeal to the appellate Tribunal under section 253 of the Act and an order imposing penalty is passed before the order of the ITAT was received

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 148, is void ab initio, the consequential reassessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

275/ 179 Taxman 157(Bom.) has also held that even where reassessment is sought to be done within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, there must be reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and such reason to believe should not be on account of mere change of opinion. Therefore, where facts have been viewed

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

275/ 179 Taxman 157(Bom.) has also held that even where reassessment is sought to be done within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, there must be reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and such reason to believe should not be on account of mere change of opinion. Therefore, where facts have been viewed