INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

147, section 148 section 148, section 149, section 151 and and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, 71belongs

AJAY MULTI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajay Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, C.J. House, 285 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aadca 0338 H Appellant Respondent

section 148A have not been followed and as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. The sanction u/s 151 is bad in law and as a result, the The sanction u/s

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

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

u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

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

u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore

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, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or any money, bullion

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, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or any money, bullion

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 153C of the Act cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee. be invoked in the case of the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer Thus, the Assessing Officer has correctly invoked reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act has correctly invoked reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act has correctly invoked reassessment proceedings u/s 147

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 ()

148 of the Act would be bad in law. be bad in law. 5.4 The Assessing Officer accordingly The Assessing Officer accordingly, treated the proceedings u/s proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as got abatedunder second provisio of section abatedunder second provisio of section 153A(1) of the Act. Thereafter, during proceedings under section , during proceedings under section 153C

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

148 of the Act would be bad in law. be bad in law. 5.4 The Assessing Officer accordingly The Assessing Officer accordingly, treated the proceedings u/s proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as got abatedunder second provisio of section abatedunder second provisio of section 153A(1) of the Act. Thereafter, during proceedings under section , during proceedings under section 153C

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 ()

148 of the Act would be bad in law. be bad in law. 5.4 The Assessing Officer accordingly The Assessing Officer accordingly, treated the proceedings u/s proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as got abatedunder second provisio of section abatedunder second provisio of section 153A(1) of the Act. Thereafter, during proceedings under section , during proceedings under section 153C

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessment by issuing a notice u/s 153C of the Act instead erroneously u/s 148 of the Act. 57. We agree with the contention of the assessee that, since, section 153C of the Act overrides the provisions of the sections 147

SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment cannot be examined in proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. It is well- proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2.\nThe CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8.\nWe have heard the both the sides

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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the same do not conform to the requirements of Section 147

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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the same do not conform to the requirements of Section 147

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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the same do not conform to the requirements of Section 147

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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the same do not conform to the requirements of Section 147