TUTOR INVESTMENT& FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which, vide its order in ITA No. 6752/Mum/2017 dated 15.06.2018, upheld the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act.

reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO adopted the book value of the shares at Rs.186 per share and treated the excess of Rs.14 per share (i.e., Rs.200 – Rs.186) as taxable under section 56(2)(vii)(b). Accordingly, the total differential amount of Rs.1,40,00,000 (Rs.14 × 10 lakh shares) was added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed

ARM INFRA & UTILITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

reassessed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147. 4.4. The DR has relied on various case laws which are fact specific and distinguishable as rebutted at the time of hearing. We crave leave to rebut the same in written submission when called upon.” 11. Considered the rival submissions and material on record. We noticed that the assessee issued and allotted

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\npremium\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nDepartment\nCO\n10,00,00,000/-Assessee\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

reassessment order:\n6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the mistake on the part of the\nLd. AO in quoting section 56(2)(viib

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nCO\nDepartment\nAssessee\n10,00,00,000/-\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nDepartment\n10,00,00,000/-\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\nCO\nAssessee\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nCO\nAssessee\n10,00,00,000/- 45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\nDepartment\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nCO\nDepartment\nAssessee\n10,00,00,000/-\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.GANDHAR YARN PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

56(2)(viib) are applicable from the A.Y. 2013-14 and onwards. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the A.O. ought to have considered the law as it was in force during A.Y.2009-10. It has also been emphasized, during the appellate proceedings that even the first proviso appended to section 68 of the Act, which requires the investor also

DCIE CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.PALI FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

reassessment proceedings which were duly recorded and communicated to the appellant. 8.17 Thus, there is no denying of the fact that the A.O had in his possession, credible information, which prima facie led to the formation of a belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of the appellant company. Therefore, in my considered opinion, reopening of assessment

DCIT CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ACRO EXPORTS TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

reassessment proceedings which were duly recorded and communicated to the appellant. 8.17 Thus, there is no denying of the fact that the A.O had in his possession, credible information, which prima facie led to the formation of a belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of the appellant company. Therefore, in my considered opinion, reopening of assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMAZON METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

reassessment proceedings which were duly recorded and communicated to the appellant. 8.17 Thus, there is no denying of the fact that the A.O had in his possession, credible information, which prima facie led to the formation of a belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of the appellant company. Therefore, in my considered opinion, reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VARAD VINAYAK REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E)

reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer requires to be cancelled, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Assessment Order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act, is bad in law and unsustainable, as the order is passed without disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant, under

VARAD VINAYAK REALTY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 (3)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer requires to be cancelled, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Assessment Order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act, is bad in law and unsustainable, as the order is passed without disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant, under

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.BELL FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had asked the appellant company to furnish name, address, PAN of the persons from whom the share application and premium was received, share allotment certificates, confirmation from the parties to whom share were allotted and Bank statement etc. in order to verify the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor. 12.23 1 have noted that

M/S. DOIT CREATIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdoit Creations (India) Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income Tax, Central 307 & 308, 3Rd Floor,, Circle 3, Room No. 1901, Midas, Sahar Plaza, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (East) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd8695A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Neena Jeph Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit(Central), Mumbai -3, Dated 31.03.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Central - 3 (Herein After Referred As 'Pcit) Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As 'The Act') By Issuing The Notice Inspite Of The Fact That Assessment U/S. 143(3) & U/S 143(3) R.Ws 147 Of The Act Has Been Completed After Due Examination & Application Of Mind While Framing The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) & U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The Act. Further Order U/S 263 Is Also Passed Merely Setting Aside The Assessment To The File Of The Learned Assessing Officer To Conduct Proper Inquiry Which Is Unjustified. It Is Therefore Submitted That The Order Passed U/S 263 Should Be Cancelled.

section 56(2) (viib) of the Act and has discussed Rule 11UA(2) of the Act in the 263 notice. In this regard we state that valuation has been done considering the valuation rules of the Act and the same is also accepted by the Assessing officer at the respective assessment proceedings. 5.5.2 Further your honour at para (vi) erred

M/S. PARVESH CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56(2)(viib) of the I. T. Act,\n1961; whereas no addition was made in the reassessment order u/s\n56(2)(viib). The said issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble\nBombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Limited, ITA no.\n1714 of 2009 and the decision of Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar