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

70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return\nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the\nnotice issued 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)

70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return\nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the\nnotice issued under Section

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

70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return\nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the\nnotice issued 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

70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return\nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the\nnotice issued under Section

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

70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter, \nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section \n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under \nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter \ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return \nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the \nnotice issued under Section

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

reassess the total income but there is a cap on the scope of additions in such assessment, being the items of income 'unearthed during the search'. In other words, the determination of 'total income' in respect of the assessment years for which the assessments are already completed on the date of search, shall not be influenced by the items

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

70 ITR 79(SC). 4.5 So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depends upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

70 ITR 79(SC). 2.10. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

70,000/- to Rs.97,55,000/- and also that securities premium of Rs.11,78,10,000/- was received during the year.” Pursuant to notice under section 148 of the Act, issued to the assessee, vide written submissions dated 28/11/2013 the assessee raised objections and challenged the reopening of assessment on the plea that even the Department does not know

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

70 ITR 79(SC). 11 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 4.5 So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

70 ITR 79(SC). 11 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 4.5 So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable

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

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

70 ITR 79(SC). 2.6. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depends upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

70 ITR 79(SC). 2.6. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depends upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

70 ITR 79(SC). 2.6. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depends upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The Assessing Officer

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

70 ITR 79(SC). M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. 2.6. So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable

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

70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter, \nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section \n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under \nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter \ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return \nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the \nnotice issued under Section

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)

Section 115JB of the Act were determined at INR.1,70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were again initiated under