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

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

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

147. Thus, the maximum time limit for initiating and completing the proceedings u/s 201(1) has to be at par with the time limit available for initiating and completing the reassessment. 17.10 Proviso to section 143(3

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

147. Thus, the maximum time limit for initiating and completing the proceedings u/s 201(1) has to be at par with the time limit available for initiating and completing the reassessment. 17.10 Proviso to section 143(3

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

147. Thus, the maximum time limit for initiating and completing the proceedings u/s 201(1) has to be at par with the time limit available for initiating and completing the reassessment. 17.10 Proviso to section 143(3

M/S. RAVI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-17, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

u/s 263(2) of the Act is clearly barred by limitation which is beyond two years. In this regard, we also find support of the decision in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Vs. ACIT Writ Petition No.10160 of 2009 dated 23.04.2010 and we also find support of the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Royal

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

147 [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 150; [(ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel]] [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section

METROPOLITAN STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

147 will not alter that position. Explanation 3 only enables the Assessing Officer, once an assessment is reopened, to assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, even an issue in respect of which no reasons were indicated in the notice under section 148(2). This, however, will not obviate the bar of limitation under section

M/S. SUMER BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(3),, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Sumer Builders Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 220, Commerce House, Central Circle – 5(3), 140, Nagindas Master (Erstwhile The Assistant Road, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 Tax, Central Circle-36, Pan: Aaacs7947P Mumbai), 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

u/s 147 of the Act after recording reasons under section 148(2) after 5 M/s. Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd. issuing notice under section 148 on 13.03.2013 which was duly served upon the assessee. Pertinent to state that assessee is engaged in the business of construction of real estate projects. The case of the assessee was reopened after a search action

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

147 of the Act without issuing any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, re-assessment order passed was legally unsustainable and the same could not be justified by invoking the provisions of section 292BB of the Act. While holding so, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: - “11. Apropos the second question framed above, it is necessary that

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

147 of the Act without issuing any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, re-assessment order passed was legally unsustainable and the same could not be justified by invoking the provisions of section 292BB of the Act. While holding so, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: - “11. Apropos the second question framed above, it is necessary that

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

147 of the Act without issuing any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, re-assessment order passed was legally unsustainable and the same could not be justified by invoking the provisions of section 292BB of the Act. While holding so, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: - Mrs. Prabhaben K. Gala “11. Apropos the second question framed above

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

147 of the Act without issuing any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, re-assessment order passed was legally unsustainable and the same could not be justified by invoking the provisions of section 292BB of the Act. While holding so, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: - Mrs. Prabhaben K. Gala “11. Apropos the second question framed above

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

ASGAR MOHAMMED HUSSAIN GHADIALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

147 of the Act without issuing any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, re-assessment order passed was legally unsustainable and the same could not be justified by invoking the provisions of section 292BB of the Act. While holding so, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: - “11. Apropos the second question framed above, it is necessary that

DISHA N . LALWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is section 153, in the case of a person where a search is section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other initiated under section 132 or books