SURESH L. SATYANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

546(Guj) and Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing Society v. CIT (1993) 109 ITR 17(Guj.) , Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers Private Limited in ITA no. 120/2012 dated 07-01-2013 and CIT v. N R Portfolio Private Limited in ITA no. 1018/1019 of 2011 dated 22.11.2013. The A.O. relying

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act vide notice dated 04/03/2015 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the consequent re-assessment order dated 28/03/2016 stand quashed. Next we would take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 10. The appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 arises from common 11. order dated 06/02/2023

ITO-42(1)(1),MUMBAI, INCOME TAX vs. ASHWIN MOOLCHAND MADHANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

546. Reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, were initiated in the case of the assessee based on information

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

546 (Mad). In the case of Duggal & Co. V/s. CIT 220 ITR 456 (Del), it is also held that word "erroneous" used in Section 263 of the Act, includes the failure to make enquiries as it is incumbent on the A.O. to investigate the facts stated in the return. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Nakland Diamonds vs. ACIT

THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2551&2129/Mum/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation Of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. Of Income Tax Ltu Shipping House, 10Th Floor, 245, 29Th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F Assistant Commissioner Of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax Ltu Of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28Th Floor, World Trade Shipping House, 10Th Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Floor, 245, Madam Cama 400005 Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F

546/ 52,96,131/- from core activities 9.95.30,047/- * *” Excess of Incidental Activities ITA nos.2551&2129/MUM/2012 Asstt. Years 2006-07 13 17. The AO during the original assessment proceeding has questioned about the different components of core shipping activities and the turnover vide notice dated 1st September, 2008 under section 142(1) of the Act. The relevant query/question raised

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2551&2129/Mum/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation Of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. Of Income Tax Ltu Shipping House, 10Th Floor, 245, 29Th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F Assistant Commissioner Of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax Ltu Of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28Th Floor, World Trade Shipping House, 10Th Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Floor, 245, Madam Cama 400005 Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F

546/ 52,96,131/- from core activities 9.95.30,047/- * *” Excess of Incidental Activities ITA nos.2551&2129/MUM/2012 Asstt. Years 2006-07 13 17. The AO during the original assessment proceeding has questioned about the different components of core shipping activities and the turnover vide notice dated 1st September, 2008 under section 142(1) of the Act. The relevant query/question raised

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

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

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

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

reassessment made under section 147, or (b) after the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. . . . 9. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings

SAI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 , THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

546/- was levied. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. All the issues are in connection with the confirmation of the penalty levied

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment u/s 148 and hence such assessment made was bad in law and liable to be quashed. was bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Hon. CIT Appeals erred

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment u/s 148 and hence such assessment made was bad in law and liable to be quashed. was bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Hon. CIT Appeals erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

section 254(2) of the Act.\nWe don't know whether any such application has been filed by the\nassessee, but it is clear that no stay petition of assessee was listed\nbefore us and therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed as\ninfructuous. The ground No. 7 (ii) and 7(iii) stands already covered\nwhile disposing the grounds challenging

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

section 254(2) of the Act.\nWe don't know whether any such application has been filed by the\nassessee, but it is clear that no stay petition of assessee was listed\nbefore us and therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed as\ninfructuous. The ground No. 7 (ii) and 7(iii) stands already covered\nwhile disposing the grounds challenging

DIAGOLD DESIGNS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee, are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Diagold Designs Limited, Cc2070, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-12(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Aabcd3716 ..... Respondent

546 (Bom.) PCIT v. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia “We are in agreement with the view expressed by the CIT (Appeals) that, if the purchases are bogus, it would be impossible for the assessee to complete the business transaction and that if the purchase is bogus, the corresponding sale also must be bogus or else the transaction would be impossible to complete