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)

6 raised in the present appeal. 60. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have perused the material on record. 61. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf of the Assessee on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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)

6 raised in the present appeal. 60. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have perused the material on record. 61. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf of the Assessee on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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)

6. In view of the above facts and information in possession with this office, there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of income of Rs.76,31,06,529/- Therefore, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax of Rs.76,31,06,529/- and has escaped assessment

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

6 of the paper-book, which talks about Bhawarlal Jain Group and consequent search and survey action carried out by the Investigation Wing on 03.10.2013. Our attention was further invited to page 15 of the paper-book, containing a letter dated 05.01.2018, addressed to Meenakshi N Shah. The crux of the argument on behalf of the assessee is that

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

206, Matru Mandir, Vs. Market, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400 007. PAN NO. AAAAE 6452 D Appellant Respondent : Ms. Shivani Shah Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR : 14/10/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 23/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM The captioned appeals are directed against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act by relying on an incriminating information found by the Revenue, in search operation on a 3rd party. 6.1 We observe the similar issue was also raised before

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

6 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose

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

6 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

6) were issued to eight parties were returned back unserved by the postal department, with the remark, “not known”, “not traceable” and “Left” etc. The Ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from such parties with supporting evidences and also to produce for such verification, the assessee failed to do so. In this

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

6) were returned back unserved by the postal department, in this background, we shall analyze whether the Ld. Assessing Officer was right in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. 2.6. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it is our bounded duty to examine the validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, therefore, before adverting

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

206 (Kerala) even went to the extent so long as the AO has independently applied his mind to all the relevant aspect and has arrived to a belief the reopening cannot be said to be invalid. 2.4. We are aware that “mere change of opinion” cannot form the basis of reopening when the necessary facts were fully and truly disclosed

ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN vs. RICH & ROYAL, KALYAN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 147 clearly depicts that the Assessing Officer has power to make addition, where he arrived to a conclusion that income has escaped assessment which came to his notice during the course of proceedings of reassessment u/s 148. our view is fortified by the decision in Majinder Singh Kang vs CIT (2012) 25 taxman.com 124/344