OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 43(5) of the Act. 3.8. From the order of the ld. CIT(A), we note his observation and finding on the above stated lines, holding reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion by the ld. Assessing Officer. Relevant extract is as under: “It is also a fact that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 43(5) of the Act. 3.8. From the order of the ld. CIT(A), we note his observation and finding on the above stated lines, holding reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion by the ld. Assessing Officer. Relevant extract is as under: “It is also a fact that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 43(5) of the Act. 3.8. From the order of the ld. CIT(A), we note his observation and finding on the above stated lines, holding reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion by the ld. Assessing Officer. Relevant extract is as under: “It is also a fact that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 43(5) of the Act. 3.8. From the order of the ld. CIT(A), we note his observation and finding on the above stated lines, holding reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion by the ld. Assessing Officer. Relevant extract is as under: “It is also a fact that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 43(5) of the Act. 3.8. From the order of the ld. CIT(A), we note his observation and finding on the above stated lines, holding reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion by the ld. Assessing Officer. Relevant extract is as under: “It is also a fact that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 43(5) of the Act. 3.8. From the order of the ld. CIT(A), we note his observation and finding on the above stated lines, holding reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion by the ld. Assessing Officer. Relevant extract is as under: “It is also a fact that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 43(5) of the Act. 3.8. From the order of the ld. CIT(A), we note his observation and finding on the above stated lines, holding reopening of the assessment is based on change of opinion by the ld. Assessing Officer. Relevant extract is as under: “It is also a fact that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

reassessment order u/s.147\nthat 1d. Assessing Officer has incorrectly used the word 'commodities'\ninstead of 'future and options'. In addition to what is discussed above,\nassessee further submitted that in the Finance Bill, 2005, while\nintroducing clause (b) in section 43(5

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment order u/s.147\nthat 1d. Assessing Officer has incorrectly used the word 'commodities'\ninstead of 'future and options'. In addition to what is discussed above,\nassessee further submitted that in the Finance Bill, 2005, while\nintroducing clause (b) in section 43(5

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

5), be limited to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the liability. which the estate is capable of meeting the liability.” 9.3 On perusal of the provisions above On perusal of the provisions above, we find that the we find that the Section 159 of the Income-tax Act provides a complete code for assessment

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

43,883/- and under minimum alternative tax (MAT) provisions of section and under minimum alternative tax (MAT) provisions of section and under minimum alternative tax (MAT) provisions of section 115JB at ₹2,955,93,53,702/ 93,53,702/-. 3.1 Subsequently, pursuant to an audit objection, the Assessing pursuant to an audit objection, the Assessing pursuant to an audit objection

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

43. RELIEF U/S 89(1) U/S 90 / U/S RELIEF U/S 89(1) U/S 90 / U/S 0 91 44. NET TAX NET TAX 91,18,215 91,18,215 45. INTEREST U/S 234A INTEREST U/S 234A 0 46. DELAY PERIOD DELAY PERIOD 0 47. INTEREST U/S 234B INTEREST U/S 234B 16,44,035 16,44,035 48. INTEREST U/S 234C INTEREST

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

43. RELIEF U/S 89(1) U/S 90 / U/S RELIEF U/S 89(1) U/S 90 / U/S 0 91 44. NET TAX NET TAX 91,18,215 91,18,215 45. INTEREST U/S 234A INTEREST U/S 234A 0 46. DELAY PERIOD DELAY PERIOD 0 47. INTEREST U/S 234B INTEREST U/S 234B 16,44,035 16,44,035 48. INTEREST U/S 234C INTEREST

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

43. RELIEF U/S 89(1) U/S 90 / U/S RELIEF U/S 89(1) U/S 90 / U/S 0 91 44. NET TAX NET TAX 91,18,215 91,18,215 45. INTEREST U/S 234A INTEREST U/S 234A 0 46. DELAY PERIOD DELAY PERIOD 0 47. INTEREST U/S 234B INTEREST U/S 234B 16,44,035 16,44,035 48. INTEREST U/S 234C INTEREST

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently

RITESH SINGH ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TREND ELECTRONICS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

5) of the IBC. 4.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear distinction between determination of dues and and enforcement distinction between or recovery thereof or recovery thereof. While the IBC overrides the Income . While

NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 6 of the IT Act. Assessment of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information (called as 'Base Note') which was received in respect of the assessee from the office of DIT(Inv.)-II, Mumbai pertaining to a bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. It was submitted by assessee before AO that he is a Non-resident