DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

section 139; (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

section 139; (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the same was done purely on change of opinion. This was also rejected by the revenue authorities. Hence the above appeal by the assessee before 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The issue sought to be canvassed by the assessee in Ground NO.II is no longer

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the same was done purely on change of opinion. This was also rejected by the revenue authorities. Hence the above appeal by the assessee before 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The issue sought to be canvassed by the assessee in Ground NO.II is no longer

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. l stand revived. 10. Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the Inocme 10. Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the Inocme 10. Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the Inocme-tax Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of proceedings under Section it becomes

M/S. BIOBUILD DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

sections 80HH and 80-1 as well. 21. In view of our above discussions, the Tribunal was right in 16 Assessment Year 2013-2014 holding that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to reassess

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

80,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act." P a g e | 11 ITA No. 3331, 3332/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 Shri Amit Mangilal Jain The A.O. has received the details and information, were the search and survey action was carried at M/s Ekata & Bhoomi Group on 05.10.2015, and during

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, an assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year iod of four years from

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 38, MUMBAI

Section 80-IB, and it lays down important criteria that must be\nfulfilled for such deductions to be allowable.\n7.3. Given that the AO did not have the benefit of this authoritative\ninterpretation at the time of the original assessment, it is imperative that this\nmatter be remanded back to the AO. The AO should be directed to reassess

THE DY CIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOUROUS LTD., MUMBAI

Section 80-IB, and it lays down important criteria that must be\nfulfilled for such deductions to be allowable.\n7.3. Given that the AO did not have the benefit of this authoritative\ninterpretation at the time of the original assessment, it is imperative that this\nmatter be remanded back to the AO. The AO should be directed to reassess

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

Section 80-IB, and it lays down important criteria that must be\nfulfilled for such deductions to be allowable.\n7.3. Given that the AO did not have the benefit of this authoritative\ninterpretation at the time of the original assessment, it is imperative that this\nmatter be remanded back to the AO. The AO should be directed to reassess

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

reassessments finalized for finalized for the the the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 1020, 1019, 1550 & 1548/M/2018 & 1970/M/2022 Income Income-tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

reassessments finalized for finalized for the the the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 1020, 1019, 1550 & 1548/M/2018 & 1970/M/2022 Income Income-tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly

RABI NARAYAN BASTIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-NFAC , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment order dated 26-12-17 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 are bad in law, for the following reasons- Rabi Narayan Bastia ITA no.2115/Mum./2023 a) The Ld. AO ACIT 20(3) has no jurisdiction to initiate the re-assessment proceedings and the Hon. Pr. CIT-20 approving the re-assessment proceedings was not the jurisdictional

GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice; 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which

SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Him.

Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice; 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which

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

reassessment proceedings is dismissed as having been \nrendered infructuous. \n156. Thus, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly \nallowed. \n157. In result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue [ITA \nNo.2836/Mum/2024] is dismissed and appeal preferred by the \nAssessee [ITA No.2619/Mum/2024] is partly allowed. \n ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2016-2017 \nITA No.2834/Mum/2024(Revenue’s Appeal) \n158. We wouldnext take

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue\nare dismissed

reassessment of the total income, as\nthe case may be. The assessee is entitled to make a fresh\nclaim in the said return, which might not have been claimed\nin the original return filed u/s 139 of the Act. Similarly, the\nA.O. is also entitled to reexamine the issues and make a\nreassessment in respect of such return. However

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