INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRITBHAI K. THUMMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 133(6), Income tax return copy, bank statements, ledger statements, source of funds and all the loan interest was paid and TDS was also deducted. Here also AO had doubted their creditworthiness in extending their loan. I had examined bank statement, source of funds and net worth of above persons. Networth of the above persons is as under

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

6. Subsequently, vide order, dated 30.03.2021, passed under Section 263 of the Act, the reassessment order dated 24.12.2018 was set aside

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

6\ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\nGround No.1 & 2\n26. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity\nof the reassessment proceedings read as under:\n“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section

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

6\ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\nGround No.1 & 2\n26. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity\nof the reassessment proceedings read as under:\n\"1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

6. In response filed response dated 24.01.2022 and written submissions dated 24.02.2022. However, the PCIT was not convinced with the explanation/submission furnished by the Appellant. Therefore, vide order, dated 25.03.2022, passed under Section 263 of the Act, the order dated 30.12.2019 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was set aside by the PCIT leading

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

6\ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\n\nGround No.1 & 2\n\n26. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity\nof the reassessment proceedings read as under:\n\n“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6\ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\n\nGround No.1 & 2\n\n26.\nGround No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity\nof the reassessment proceedings read as under:\n\n“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

6 ITA 640/Mum/2021 notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26-03-2018. The reason recorded for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, a copy of which is at page 40 of the paper book, would reveal that for assessing the escaped income of Rs.2,00,50,000/- being the contribution

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 20.02.2015. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 92 days and registry has pointed out the defects. When this was pointed out to learned Counsel for the assessee he stated that assessee has already filed

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

reassessment 68 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 or recomputation, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice under sub-section (1) of section 148 ; (iii) the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income

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

6 \ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim. \nGround No.1 & 2 \n26. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity \nof the reassessment proceedings read as under: \n“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by \ntreating the reassessment order passed under section

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

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

6\ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\n\nGround No.1 & 2\n\n26. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity\nof the reassessment proceedings read as under:\n\n“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section

M/S. RAVI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-17, MUMBAI

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

reassessment proceedings. Thus, he 5 A.Y. 2010-11 submitted, there being no error in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, proceeding under section 263 of the Act would not lie. He submitted, since the learned PCIT could not have revised original assessment order passed under section

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the issue of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act was a subject matter of dispute in the original assessment proceedings. In this context, he drew our attention to the observations of the assessing officer in the original assessment order on the said issue. Further, drawing our attention

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

6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The between power to review and power to reassess. The between power to review and power to reassess. The assessing officer has no power to review; he has the power assessing officer has no power to review; he has the power assessing

SALTWATER STUDIO LLP,MUM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम / Saltwater Studio Llp Nfac, Delhi 103, Corporate Corner, F Block, Northe Block, Vs. Sunder Nagar, Near Dalmia New Delhi-110001 College, Malad (West) Mumbai-400 064 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ackfs1653D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

section (1) has been initiated; (b) in a case where an assessment or reassessment has the effect of reducing the loss declared in the return or converting that 6

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

reassessment order dated 25.02.2022 as having become infructuous and, accordingly, 25.02.2022 as having become infructuous and, accordingly, 25.02.2022 as having become infructuous and, accordingly, proceeded to issue a fresh notice under section 148A(b) of the Act proceeded to issue a fresh notice under section 148A(b) of the Act proceeded to issue a fresh notice under section 148A

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment based on such documents must be made only under section 153C and not u/s 147. Therefore, the invocation of section 147 in this context is not legally valid. 5.4 The ld.AR has strongly relied upon the latest decision of hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sejal Jewellery 2025(2) TMI 870-Bombay wherein it held that