ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section 147. Thus, the reassessment

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section 147. Thus, the reassessment

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section 147. Thus, the reassessment

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section 147. Thus, the reassessment

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section 147. Thus, the reassessment

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section 147. Thus, the reassessment

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section 147. Thus, the reassessment

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of\nthe Act was finalized assessing income at Rs.2,60,33,300/-.\n3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed\nby the Assessing Officer that the assessee had credited an amount of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as Rental income in its P&L A/c. It treated the rent\ncharges

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of\nthe Act was finalized assessing income at Rs.2,60,33,300/-.\n3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed\nby the Assessing Officer that the assessee had credited an amount of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as Rental income in its P&L A/c. It treated the rent\ncharges

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of\nthe Act was finalized assessing income at Rs.2,60,33,300/-.\n3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed\nby the Assessing Officer that the assessee had credited an amount of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as Rental income in its P&L A/c. It treated the rent\ncharges

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of\nthe Act was finalized assessing income at Rs.2,60,33,300/-.\n3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed\nby the Assessing Officer that the assessee had credited an amount of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as Rental income in its P&L A/c. It treated the rent\ncharges

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the 1961 Act bringing said income chargeable to tax under the head „income from house property‟ for all the aforesaid assessment years . The assessee filed its return of income for impugned assessment year 2009-10 on 26.09.2009 wherein said income was declared as „Income from House property‟ as the reassessment

BENCO FINANCE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

property etc., the A.O reopened her case and issued a notice u/s 148, dated 15.03.2013 and despatched the same for delivery through post at the address that was mentioned in her PAN database. However, the aforesaid notice issued u/s 148,dated 15.03.2018 was returned by the postal authorities on 23.03.2018 with a remark ―left‖. As the assessee had not changed

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment proceedings. The revised return of income filed by the assessee is accepted by department without any additions. 2. In this context, it is to be stated that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable either for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The word 'concealment' denotes a deliberate, conscious attempt on the part

VASWANI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

147 dtd.20-3-2013, the total income before distribution to members is assessed at Rs. 2,30,66,632/-. as against Rs.2,17,74,217/- shown by the assessee in the original return, leading to enhancement of income by Rs. 12,92,4157/-. Had the case not been reopened u/s 148, the said income would have not been brought under

ITO 18(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DR . VASANT J RATH TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Income Tax Officer 18(2)(1), Room No.110, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ... Appellant

house property’. 5.4.3 In the cited decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), it has been held that the Assessing Officer has the power to assess other income only if the income referred to in the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings u/s. 147

ACIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GIGAPLEX ESTATE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings, an 3 1181/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Gigalplex Estate Pvt. Ltd. assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in the original return, as such the assessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an action under section 132 of the Act also cannot be utilized by the assessee to seek relief

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating