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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

dividend income of Rs. 1,16,24,021/- received from M/s received from M/s Alexandria Carbon Black Limited, Egypt as not taxable in Alexandria Carbon Black Limited, Egypt as not taxable in Alexandria Carbon Black Limited, Egypt as not taxable in India and exclude the same from taxable income. India and exclude the same from taxable income. India and exclude

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

dividend income of Rs.9,86,80,000/- which was claimed as an exempt income u/s 10 of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that the assessee is maintaining common books of accounts and hence the expenses are to be apportioned between different heads of income. The AO disallowed expenses on proportionate basis to the tune

TIME MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LLP (EARLIER TIME MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Llp (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 Th Floor, V. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6534/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.07.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-89/Ito-16(1)(5)/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 6. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed that the I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 assessee is engaged in the business of TV serials telecast, advertising, film distribution etc. and had income from sale of pre-recorded CD/DVD

ADVANTAGE MOTI (INDIA) P.LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS HARIBHAKTI MOTI INDIA P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.7379/M/2012 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2006-07

u/s 147 on following reasons recorded : 3 M/s.Advantage Moti (India) Pvt. Ltd. “The assessment for A.Y. 2006-07 of M/s.Pantaloons Retail Technologies Ltd. was completed on 19.12.2008. During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s. Pantaloon Retail Technologies Ltd.(M/s.PRTL) it was noticed that M/s.Pantaloon Technologies P.Ltd. has advanced a loan

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

deemed to have been accepted in law us 143(3) of the Act having regard to all the material law us 143(3) of the Act having regard to all the material law us 143(3) of the Act having regard to all the material and the information available on record and, therefore, the and the information available on record

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

deemed to have been accepted in law us 143(3) of the Act having regard to all the material law us 143(3) of the Act having regard to all the material law us 143(3) of the Act having regard to all the material and the information available on record and, therefore, the and the information available on record

GLOBAL BUSINESS CONEXXTIONS PVT.LTD.,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), MUMBAI

u/s 2(22) (e) of the Act on account of deemed dividend as the assessee has received loans from Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd and the shareholder in the assessee company is also substantial shareholder in the Advantage Overseas Pvt Ltd. and also the issue has not attained finality in view of reference of judgment in the case of Ankitech Private

ITO - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 13. The facts in brief are that the assessee has taken a loan of Rs.2,65,00,000/- from M/s. Multiventure Agro and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The AO noted that M/s. Bay Tree Agro Firms Pvt. Ltd. is a common shareholder on the assessee as well as on the above

M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 13. The facts in brief are that the assessee has taken a loan of Rs.2,65,00,000/- from M/s. Multiventure Agro and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The AO noted that M/s. Bay Tree Agro Firms Pvt. Ltd. is a common shareholder on the assessee as well as on the above

JSK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

147 of the Act. The 1st proviso provides that if the re- opening is after a period 4 years as stated above, the escapement has to be because of failure on the part of the assesse to fully and truly disclose all information/material facts M/s. JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. & ors necessary for assessment of income and not otherwise

ITO 24(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ANUSHREE V. KHETAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Sing, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4975/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ito-24(1)(2) Smt. Anushree V. Khetan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Khetan Bhavan, 605, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 78, J. B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aocpk 8810 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi

u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied. Hence, the entire amount of loans and advances given during FY 2005-06 needs to be taxed as "Deemed Dividend" in the hand of the recipient i.e. Ms. Anushree Khetan in AY 2006-07. AO also pointed that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2005-06 appellant had mislead

RAMESH PREMJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the IT Act dated 09.12.2019 assessing total income at Rs,3,46,93,780/- as against returned income of Rs.1,85,690/-,which was requested to be held as a in law as the same was liable to be quashed and cancelled as the assessment order

ADITY DALMIYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Aditya Dalmiya Vs Ito-17(1)(1), Mumbai 36, 5Th Floor, Vishnu Mahal D Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aclpd1591Q Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Shri Biren Gabhawala Respondent By Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

reassess the issue of "deemed dividend" other than the issues in respect of which proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiated in the hands of the shareholder of the Assessee-Company and addition was made in the hands of such shareholder as deemed dividend income vide Assessment Order, dated 13/11/2018, passed under Section 147 of the Act in the case of Mr. Sam Balsara. Therefore, the Assessee filed application under Section 264 of the Act for rectification

ACIT-27(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURJIT SINGH AMRIK SINGH SAINI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran\Nand\Nshri Raj Kumar Chauhan\Nita No. 4029/Mum/2024\N Assessment Year : 2016-17\Nacit-27(3),\N4Th Floor,\Nvashi Complex,\Nvashi Railway Station,\Nnavi Mumbai\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsurjit Singh Amrik Singh Saini,\Nsaini House, 176A,\Nstation, Avenue Road,\Nnear Post Office,\Nchembur,\Nmumbai\Npan : Alzps4719C\N(Respondent)\Nfor Assessee : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ca &\Nms. Vaishali More, Ca\Nfor Revenue: Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing: 05-12-2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 05-02-2025\Norder\Nper B.R. Baskaran, A.M :\Nthe Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order\Ndt.14-06-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax\N(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld.Cit(A)']\Nand It Relates To Ay. 2016-17. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Decision\Nof The Ld.Cit(A) In Holding That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') Is Not Valid & Further Holding That\Nthe Addition Made By The Ao U/S.2(22)(E) Of The Act Is Liable To Be\Ndeleted.\N2. The Facts Relating To The Case Are Stated In Brief. The Assessee Is\Nan Individual & He Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under\Nconsideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.94.42 Lakhs. The\Nassessment Was Completed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Accepting\Nthe Total Income Returned By The Assessee.\N2.

reassessment\nproceedings only. The original assessment of the year under\nconsideration has been completed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act.\nDuring the course of original assessment proceedings, the AO has\nasked for the details of bank accounts of the assessee as well as the\ndetails of income declared under the head “income from other sources\",\nvide

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassessments can be framed u/s 147/148 of the Act if no new tangible material has come to the notice of the A.O. as there is no reason to believe based upon the new tangible material coming into the possession of the A.O. which could lead to forming an opinion that an income has escaped assessment, thus, it would warrant that

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and other similar disallowance / additions on the basis of regular books of account and return filed by the assessee u/s 153A of I.T. Act, 1961. There is no iota of discussion of any seized / incriminating materials. Even during remand proceedings, the AO has not brought on record any incriminating material

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and other similar disallowance / additions on the basis of regular books of account and return filed by the assessee u/s 153A of I.T. Act, 1961. There is no iota of discussion of any seized / incriminating materials. Even during remand proceedings, the AO has not brought on record any incriminating material