ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Essar Shipping Limited V. Pr. Cit-5 Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg Room No. 501 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aacce3707D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

reassessment order itself is bad in law, whether such order can be revised u/s. 263 of the Act. The Tribunal held that since no notice u/s. 143(2) was prepared, issued and served upon the assessee, the assessment framed u/s. 147

BHASKAR ARVIND KUMAR HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

reassessment u/s 147, the limitation period provided in Sec. 263(2) had to be reckoned from the date of order u/s 143(3) and not with reference to date of the order passed u/s 147/143(3). 33 A.Y. 2014-15 Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad 33. Useful reference in this regard may also be made to the decision

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 153D of the Income tax Act cannot be subjected to revision without revising the approval of JCIT.” 3.15. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,TELAGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 153D of the Income tax Act cannot be subjected to revision without revising the approval of JCIT.” 3.15. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 153D of the Income tax Act cannot be subjected to revision without revising the approval of JCIT.” 3.15. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 153D of the Income tax Act cannot be subjected to revision without revising the approval of JCIT.” 3.15. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 153D of the Income tax Act cannot be subjected to revision without revising the approval of JCIT.” 3.15. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 153D of the Income tax Act cannot be subjected to revision without revising the approval of JCIT.” 3.15. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 153D of the Income tax Act cannot be subjected to revision without revising the approval of JCIT.” 3.15. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 153D of the Income tax Act cannot be subjected to revision without revising the approval of JCIT.” 3.15. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 153D of the Income tax Act cannot be subjected to revision without revising the approval of JCIT.” 3.15. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

reassessment order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the act was passed on 31 December 2018. Therefore, apparently if the learned PCIT would like to revise the order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act which was passed on 25th of March 2015, the time limit set under the provisions of Section 263

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

263(2) applies to the Original Order which time limit has expired. Therefore, the revision proceedings are time barred.” (Highlighted by us for clarity) 5. The Ld. PCIT though considered the contentions raised by the Assessee, however, not being convinced by the same, ultimately held the reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 u/s 147

M/S. PANTIME FINANCE CO. P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings itself. Hence the same cannot be the subject matter of revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. Hence the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act fails on this count itself. 3.6.1. Moroever, the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act were not invoked

M/S K R CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CENTRAL-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathak.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19Th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021

263 is bad-in4aw and liable to be quashed. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order is bad in law in so far as the Ld. Pr. CIT seeks to revise the reassessment order u/s 147

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

u/s 263 it has been alleged that source of purchase and sale of transactions remained to be verified.\n9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, or delete any grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”\n11. During the course of hearing before us the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the reassessment proceedings

JAI HIND CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

147, which subsequently became subject matter of revisions in the impugned revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost

THE NAVYUG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

147, which subsequently became subject matter of revisions in the impugned revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost

THE AZAD NAGAR, COOPERATIVE HOUSING, SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

147, which subsequently became subject matter of revisions in the impugned revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost