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

reassessment proceedings. Explanation-1 to section 147 of the Act supports our view. Referring to the said explanation in consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (2006) 281

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

reassessment proceedings. Explanation-1 to section 147 of the Act supports our view. Referring to the said explanation in consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (2006) 281

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

281 ITR 394 (Del.), Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- “8. It is clear from the above that the two critical aspects which need to be addressed in any action under section 147 are whether the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and whether the proposed reassessment

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

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

Section 68 of the Act. 4.6 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an a Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ppeal before the ld CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reassessment ld CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reassessment ld CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, MUMBAI

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act had come up for consideration before several High Courts. A learned Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT v. M. Chellappan [2006] 281 ITR 444 had occasion to consider the provision. The Assessing Officer proceeded fo reassess

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AACHMAN VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

section 147 or 148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” 10. Insofar as, the statement recorded during the course of search of other person, stand of the revenue that the same has to be considered as incriminating material, is also not tenable in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AACHMAN VANIJYA PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

section 147 or 148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” 10. Insofar as, the statement recorded during the course of search of other person, stand of the revenue that the same has to be considered as incriminating material, is also not tenable in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AACHMAN VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

section 147 or 148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” 10. Insofar as, the statement recorded during the course of search of other person, stand of the revenue that the same has to be considered as incriminating material, is also not tenable in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AACHMAN VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

section 147 or 148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” 10. Insofar as, the statement recorded during the course of search of other person, stand of the revenue that the same has to be considered as incriminating material, is also not tenable in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. AACHMAN VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

section 147 or 148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” 10. Insofar as, the statement recorded during the course of search of other person, stand of the revenue that the same has to be considered as incriminating material, is also not tenable in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment unless some incriminating material concerning those issues were found during the course of search. Otherwise, in the concluded assessments which have been reopened u/s 153A, the assessing officer should restrict himself with the additions arising out of the incriminating materials found during the course of search." 20.21 In the case of Viraj Forgings Ltd. vs. DOT [ITA No. 1948/M/2008

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, MUMBAI

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act had come up for consideration before several High Courts. A learned Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT v. M. Chellappan [2006] 281 ITR 444 had occasion to consider the provision. The Assessing Officer proceeded fo reassess

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

section 143(3) and thereafter, with the initiation of the reassessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer proposes or wants to take a different view. The word "opinion" is derived from the latin word "opinari" which means "to believe", "to think". The word "opinion" as per the Black's Law Dictionary means a statement by a judge 15 Ms. Seema Dilip vora

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(1) , MUMBAI, MUMBAI

sections 148 to 153, assess\nor reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has\nescaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course\nof proceedings u/s 147, apart from the income escaping assessment on which the\nAO formed reason to believe about the escapement of income and issued notice\nu/s

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section…’. A bare perusal of the above provision manifests that the AO is fully empowered to bring to tax any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. of proceedings u/s 147, apart from the income escaping assessment on which the AO formed reason to believe about

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have