MR. ANTHONY P LEWIS,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22(1)(1), MUMBAI

Reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Appellant as the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income has escaped assessment as the Appellant had not offered to tax capital gains income arising from transfer of the Property. 6.2. The admitted facts are that the Appellant had entered into an Agreement for Sale, dated 01.04.2008, with M/s Raja

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, in the case before us, the Assessing Officer had not scrutinized the issue of deductibility of payments made to auto dealers under Section 37 of the Act (read with Explanation 1 thereto) during the regular scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of the Assessing Officer forming ‘another view

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, in the case before us, the Assessing Officer had not scrutinized the issue of deductibility of payments made to auto dealers under Section 37 of the Act (read with Explanation 1 thereto) during the regular scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of the Assessing Officer forming ‘another view

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, in the case before us, the Assessing Officer had not scrutinized the issue of deductibility of payments made to auto dealers under Section 37 of the Act (read with Explanation 1 thereto) during the regular scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of the Assessing Officer forming ‘another view

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, in the case before us, the Assessing Officer had not scrutinized the issue of deductibility of payments made to auto dealers under Section 37 of the Act (read with Explanation 1 thereto) during the regular scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of the Assessing Officer forming ‘another view

ABHUBHAI HIRABHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

47,68,911/- in cash which was not shown in\nthe return of income. Therefore, the amount was added to his income. In\nthe subsequent appeal, the asssessee inter alia contested the addition\nclaiming that no such cash payment was made and the transactions were\nmade through banking channels and were duly reflected in the bank\naccount and shown

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing the impugned orders dated 30 July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said provisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 2. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee\N\Nita No.6827/Mum/2024\Nita No.6828/Mum/2024\Nita No.6829/Mum/2024\Nita No.6830/Mum/2024\Nita No.6831/Mum/2024\Nita No.6832/Mum/2024\Nita No.6833/Mum/2024\Nita No.6834/Mum/2024\N\Na.Y. 2019-20\Na.Y. 2020-21\Na.Y. 2016-17\Na.Y. 2014-15\Na.Y. 2017-18\Na.Y. 2015-16\Na.Y. 2018-19\Na.Y. 2021-22\N\Nannapurna Buildcon Infra Vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, Thane\Nprivate Limited,\Nroom No.10, 6Th Floor, Ashar\Nshop No.6, Ground Floor,\Nit Park, Wagle Industrial\Nrachana Chs Ltd, Opp.\Nestate, Thane(W).\Nmcf Club, Jogurs Park,\Nborivali (West),\Nmumbai\Npan: Aahca7229F\Nappellant\Nrespondent\N\Nfor Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta\Nfor Revenue: Dr. K.R. Subhash Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 12-02-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 06-03-2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Bench :\Nall The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Ncommon Order Dt.25-10-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11, [‘Ld.Cit(A)] & They Relate To Ays.\N2014-15 To 2021-22. Since Common Issues Are Urged In These Appeals,\Nthey Were Heard Together. Hence, They Are Being Disposed Of By This\Ncommon Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. The Common Issue Contested In All These Years Is Related To The\Naddition Of Estimated Profit On The Alleged On-Money Received By The\Nassessee On Sale Of Flats.\N\N2.

section 153A of the Act permits reopening of assessments\nof assessment years beyond six years (those years are referred to as\n“relevant assessment years) subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.\nIn the instant case, the AO has reopened the assessment of AY.\n2014-15 also invoking the 4th proviso to sec.153A of the Act. The\nassessee is challenging

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings\nunder section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the information\nreceived during the course of the search on another entity, therefore the AO\nwas duty bound to initiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Act\ninstead of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, in view of the non-\nobstante clause

MR GAJANAN PARSHURAM KHISMATRAO,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(2), KALYAN

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee\Nita No.6827/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2019-20\Nita No.6828/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2020-21\Nita No.6829/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2016-17\Nita No.6830/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2014-15\Nita No.6831/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18\Nita No.6832/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2015-16\Nita No.6833/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2018-19\Nita No.6834/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2021-22\Nannapurna Buildcon Infra Vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, Thane\Nprivate Limited,\Nroom No.10, 6Th Floor, Ashar\Nshop No.6, Ground Floor,\Nit Park, Wagle Industrial\Nrachana Chs Ltd, Opp.\Nestate, Thane(W).\Nmcf Club, Jogurs Park,\Nborivali (West),\Nmumbai\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Npan: Aahca7229F\Nfor Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta\Nfor Revenue: Dr. K.R. Subhash Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 12-02-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 06-03-2025\Norder\Nper Bench :\Nall The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Ncommon Order Dt.25-10-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-Pune-11, [‘Ld.Cit(A)] & They Relate To Ays.\N2014-15 To 2021-22. Since Common Issues Are Urged In These Appeals,\Nthey Were Heard Together. Hence, They Are Being Disposed Of By This\Ncommon Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.\N2. The Common Issue Contested In All These Years Is Related To The\Naddition Of Estimated Profit On The Alleged On-Money Received By The\Nassessee On Sale Of Flats.\N2.

section 153A of the Act permits reopening of assessments\nof assessment years beyond six years (those years are referred to as\n“relevant assessment years) subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.\nIn the instant case, the AO has reopened the assessment of AY.\n2014-15 also invoking the 4th proviso to sec.153A of the Act. The\nassessee is challenging