CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

2) : In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head “Income from other sources”, namely :— [(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October

VIDYAVIHAR CONTAINERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3Rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacn0291R Appellant Respondent

282(2)(c), which was not done. Such a fundamental infirmity, it was held, could not be called a ‘technical objection’ or a mere irregularity; such vital infirmity could not be cured or obliterated by placing reliance on s. 292B. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Lal Agarwal

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA (E- VIJAYA BANK), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

282, 283 and 284 of the Income-tax Act, read with General Clauses Act. Instances have come to the notice of the department, where notices under sub-section (2) of section 143, though issued by registered post within twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished, have been held ‘invalid’ on the ground that

SHAPOORJI PALLANJI AND COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act was rightly held to be unsustainable in law. The existence of tangible material is necessary to ensure against an arbitrary exercise of power, thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). This ground of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed

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

2) read with section 47(vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v. Union of India, (2004) 269 ITR 412,418-19 (Raj), where the return of the assessee for assessment year

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

2) read with section 47(vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v. Union of India, (2004) 269 ITR 412,418-19 (Raj), where the return of the assessee for assessment year

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

BENCO FINANCE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

2) of Section 22 and may proceed to reassess such income, profits or gains". The argument is that the service of the requisite notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under Section 34; and if a valid notice is not issued as required, proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer in pursuance

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

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

2) read with section 47(vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v. Union of India, (2004) 269 ITR 412,418-19 (Raj), where the return of the assessee for assessment year

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done- through a pro - rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment is bad in law.” 2nd Rejoinder of Assessee: “Hence in furtherance to the earlier rejoinder, The Asessee submits how the case laws relied (which are not dealt in the rejoinder) on by the Department are not applicable to the present facts of the case: 1. Leader v. Duffey (1888) LR 13 App Cas 294 2. CIT v. Sodra Devi

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment is bad in law.” 2nd Rejoinder of Assessee: “Hence in furtherance to the earlier rejoinder, The Asessee submits how the case laws relied (which are not dealt in the rejoinder) on by the Department are not applicable to the present facts of the case: 1. Leader v. Duffey (1888) LR 13 App Cas 294 2. CIT v. Sodra Devi

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment is bad in law.” 2nd Rejoinder of Assessee: “Hence in furtherance to the earlier rejoinder, The Asessee submits how the case laws relied (which are not dealt in the rejoinder) on by the Department are not applicable to the present facts of the case: 1. Leader v. Duffey (1888) LR 13 App Cas 294 2. CIT v. Sodra Devi

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment is bad in law.” 2nd Rejoinder of Assessee: “Hence in furtherance to the earlier rejoinder, The Asessee submits how the case laws relied (which are not dealt in the rejoinder) on by the Department are not applicable to the present facts of the case: 1. Leader v. Duffey (1888) LR 13 App Cas 294 2. CIT v. Sodra Devi

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment is bad in law.” 2nd Rejoinder of Assessee: “Hence in furtherance to the earlier rejoinder, The Asessee submits how the case laws relied (which are not dealt in the rejoinder) on by the Department are not applicable to the present facts of the case: 1. Leader v. Duffey (1888) LR 13 App Cas 294 2. CIT v. Sodra Devi

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

reassessment proceedings. The assessee challenged reopening of assessment before the Tribunal in ITA No.4100/Mum/2011 for Assessment Year 2004-05. The Tribunal vide order dated 31/07/2017 quashed reopening of assessment. Therefore, claim was made before the A.O/DRP in the current year, as deduction was not allowed in the hands of TFL in A.Y. 2004-05. He submitted that third segment

BANK OF BARODA (ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is\ndismissed

282, 283 and\n284 of the Income-tax Act, read with General Clauses Act.\nInstances have come to the notice of the department, where\nnotices under sub-section (2) of section 143, though issued by\nregistered post within twelve months from the end of the month in\nwhich the return was furnished, have been held ‘invalid' on the\nground that

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

2) read with section 47(vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v. Union of India, (2004) 269 ITR 412,418-19 (Raj), where the return of the assessee for assessment year