DARSHANA JATIN SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

276/-.\nThus, total income was assessed at Rs. 1,49,50,776/-.\n5. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before the Ld.\nCIT(A), the assessee raised legal as well as factual grounds. The\nassessee contended that notices under sections 148A(b), 148 and\norder under section 148A(d) were not validly served and therefore\nthe reassessment

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas\nappeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

276 of 2016), considering the ratio laid down in the case of\nCIT vs. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573, has held that section 153A\nassessment cannot be made for the assessment years in which\nincriminating material is not recovered even though incriminating material\nmay be recovered for other years in the block of 6 years.\n16.26

DCIT, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. SATISH JAGANNATH AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Section 263 of the Act.” In the above-mentioned judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that no addition can be made in respect of assessments which have become final, if no incriminating material is found during the course of Search It has been held that once the original assessment, has attained finality, then the Assessing Officer while

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

276 ITR 532 (Punjab & Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka

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

276 ITR 532 (Punjab & Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka

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

276 ITR 532 (Punjab & Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED -INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

276,90,66,089/-.\nIt is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully\ndisclosed material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under\nconsideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s147 of the Act.\n7.\nIt is true that assessee has filed a copy of annual report and audited P&L\nA/c and Balance sheet along

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JMP SECURITIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

276 after making an addition of Rs. 4,44,11,556 under section 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the initiation of reassessment

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 153A of the Act, which provided reopening the assessment beyond six reopening the assessment beyond six assessment years but within 10 assessment years assessment years but within 10 assessment years subject to fulfillment fulfillment of the condition that the AO AO had in his possession incriminating evidence in his possession incriminating evidence represented in the form of asset represented

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 153A of the Act, which provided reopening the assessment beyond six reopening the assessment beyond six assessment years but within 10 assessment years assessment years but within 10 assessment years subject to fulfillment fulfillment of the condition that the AO AO had in his possession incriminating evidence in his possession incriminating evidence represented in the form of asset represented

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 153A of the Act, which provided reopening the assessment beyond six reopening the assessment beyond six assessment years but within 10 assessment years assessment years but within 10 assessment years subject to fulfillment fulfillment of the condition that the AO AO had in his possession incriminating evidence in his possession incriminating evidence represented in the form of asset represented

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 153A of the Act, which provided reopening the assessment beyond six reopening the assessment beyond six assessment years but within 10 assessment years assessment years but within 10 assessment years subject to fulfillment fulfillment of the condition that the AO AO had in his possession incriminating evidence in his possession incriminating evidence represented in the form of asset represented

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 153C of the Act to the effect that certain\ndocuments/information received in search of ‘Udai shetty group' were related\nto assessee and having bearing on the determination of the total income in the\ncase of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s 153A for\nsix assessment years proceeding to the assessment year in which search

PRATIBHA VILAS PATIL,MUMBAI vs. NAFC, , DELHI

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

Section 69 of the Act on merits. Since, the notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not complied with, the CIT(A) decided the appeal on the basis of material on record. Vide order dated 22/11/2022 the CIT(A) (a) condoned the delay for in filing the appeal (b) upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings and (c) upheld

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are for the\nbenefit of revenue and not the assessee, wherein the mandate is to bring to tax\nincome which has escaped assessment while presently we are concerned with\nproceedings initiated u/s 143(3) r.w.s.143(2). We order accordingly.\"\n15.\nThe ratio as laid down by the coordinate bench is that if by following judicial

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are for the\nbenefit of revenue and not the assessee, wherein the mandate is to bring to tax\nincome which has escaped assessment while presently we are concerned with\nproceedings initiated u/s 143(3) r.w.s.143(2). We order accordingly.\"\n15.\nThe ratio as laid down by the coordinate bench is that if by following judicial

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are for the benefit of revenue and not the assessee, wherein the mandate is to bring to tax income which has escaped assessment while presently we are concerned with proceedings initiated u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(2). We order accordingly.” 15. The ratio as laid down by the coordinate bench is that if by following

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are for the benefit of revenue and not the assessee, wherein the mandate is to bring to tax income which has escaped assessment while presently we are concerned with proceedings initiated u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(2). We order accordingly.” 15. The ratio as laid down by the coordinate bench is that if by following

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are for the benefit of revenue and not the assessee, wherein the mandate is to bring to tax income which has escaped assessment while presently we are concerned with proceedings initiated u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(2). We order accordingly.” 15. The ratio as laid down by the coordinate bench is that if by following