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

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)

reassessment proceedings on this issue is not tenable. 3.29] The issue relating to the taxability of interest income earned on fixed deposits is already taken into consideration by the DCIT, while framing the original assessment order u/s 143(3) and such issue has attained finality. Further in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position and in absence

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)

189 ITR 285, 298 (iii) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 119 ITR 996, 1004 (iv) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 445 The assessee company submitted that following documents were given to the AO during the course of regular assessment proceedings with respect to the claim u/s 80IA of the Act and no new material

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

section 147. It has further been submitted that Ld. AO had not formed any opinion on the issue of disallowance u/s 43B during regular assessment proceedings and hence, there could be no occasion to treat the same as mere change of opinion. 5.2.5. Reliance has been placed on the following judicial pronouncements for the arguments of change of opinion, reassessment

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings in this case is hit by the principle of “change of opinion” because reassessment proceedings will be invalid as notices/queries were raised by the Assessing Officer as is evident from the assessment order. The assessee duly replied to the query as is evidenced from letter dated 05/05/2009, addressed

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 ()

3) of the Act was completed on 25.03.2010, whereas notice u/s completed on 25.03.2010, whereas notice u/s 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to the Revenue this is is case

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 ()

3) of the Act was completed on 25.03.2010, whereas notice u/s completed on 25.03.2010, whereas notice u/s 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to the Revenue this is is case

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 ()

3) of the Act was completed on 25.03.2010, whereas notice u/s completed on 25.03.2010, whereas notice u/s 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to the Revenue this is is case

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Learned assessing officer admittedly added the said sum as well as an amount of Rs.2,65,070/- as indicating an alleged capital receipt in the nature of the benefits derived in lieu of no objection for additional construction. The assessee preferred its lower appeal wherein the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Learned assessing officer admittedly added the said sum as well as an amount of Rs.2,65,070/- as indicating an alleged capital receipt in the nature of the benefits derived in lieu of no objection for additional construction. The assessee preferred its lower appeal wherein the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, DCIT CIRCLE , AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

3) of the Act the total\nincome of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 84,12,54,980/- Thereafter,\nproceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated and pursuant notice u/s 148 of the\nAct was issued on 30.03.2017. In reply to said notice u/s 148 of the Act the\nAssessee's representatives vide their letter dated 26.04.2017 stated that

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

u/s 148 is valid. It is pertinent to refer to the Explanation 1 to Section 147 which provides that "Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso". Therefore

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

u/s 148 is valid. It is pertinent to refer to the Explanation 1 to Section 147 which provides that "Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso". Therefore

SHAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

189 4.2 Further, it may be appreciated that while reopening the case for reassessment under section 147 of the act the Assessing Officer need not prove the escapement of income at the stage. The reasons recorded may be prime - facie reasons and therefore at the stage of initiation of reopening proceedings only a prime facie reason is to be recorded

ACIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULATURE AND RURAL DEVELOPEMENT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () A.C.I.T-3(2)(2) National Bank For Agriculture & R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Rural Development, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai -400 020 Complex,Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaact4020G (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

189 Taxman 1) (HC) (Bom.) and the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal, being the Jurisdictional Tribunal in our case, in the case of Pirojsha Godrej Foundation v. ADIT (44 SOT 24) (Mum.), has categorically held that without proper "reasons to believe", reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. b) In the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India

ITO 6(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. ARISTO REALTY DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

189,45,99,746/- to Rs.52,2428.281/- however this amount was not credited to P&L A/c and no tax under MAT was offered. In the 15 | P a g e scrutiny assessment book profit under MAT has not been computed {115JB(2) Explanation(b)} 3. Omission to credit the above amounts in the P&L A/c for arriving true

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

147-159 Commr. Of Income-tax Delhi High Vs Kabul Chawla Court 12. PCIT Vs Meeta 395 ITR 526(2017) Delhi High 160-186 Gutgutia Conn 13. 384 ITR 543 (201 7) 187-188 PCIT - 18 Vs Ms. Lata Delhi High jain Court 11 ITA No.782/M/2019 & ITA No.1969/M/2019 M/s. Geetanjali Space Pvt. Ltd. 14. 189-194 Commr. Of Income