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 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, 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 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, 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 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

131. Confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings, in absence of any failure on the part of appellant to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, is bad in law and consequently the reassessment order needs to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above and without admitting, on the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

147 of the Act by the AO are illegal and void ab initio. In view of the provisions of section 153C of the Act, initio. In view of the provisions of section 153C of the Act, initio. In view of the provisions of section 153C of the Act, section 147/148 stand ousted. In the instant case, t section 147/148 stand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

147 of the Act by the AO are illegal and void ab initio. In view of the provisions of section 153C of the Act, initio. In view of the provisions of section 153C of the Act, initio. In view of the provisions of section 153C of the Act, section 147/148 stand ousted. In the instant case, t section 147/148 stand

UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act vide assessment order dated 31.10.2016, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had made purchases of raw material from this party namely Mani Prabha Impex P. Ltd., and payments were made to this party by account payee

UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act vide assessment order dated 31.10.2016, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had made purchases of raw material from this party namely Mani Prabha Impex P. Ltd., and payments were made to this party by account payee

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 19. Inevitable conclusion is that High Court has wrongly applied Adani Exports case (supra) which has no application to the case on the facts in view of the conceptual difference between section 143(1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 24 Navnidhi Steel & Engg

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

147 and both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee holding that so far as the reassessments related to assessment of unexplained trade 62 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 credits, they were invalid. On appeal, it has been held that the reassessments were

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

131(1A) having received brokerages on these bogus F&O Losses, , vide reassessment order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. The matter reached Ld. CIT(A) at the behest of the assessee wherein assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A) as the assessee was aggrieved by reassessment order dated

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

147 and both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee holding that so far as the reassessments related to assessment of unexplained trade credits, they were invalid. On appeal, it has been held that the reassessments were to be valid. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy

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

147 and both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee holding that so far as the reassessments related to assessment of unexplained trade credits, they were invalid. On appeal, it has been held that the reassessments were to be valid. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy

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

147 and both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee holding that so far as the reassessments related to assessment of unexplained trade credits, they were invalid. On appeal, it has been held that the reassessments were to be valid. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap