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

u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 34 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 4.28. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under:- “In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening

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

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 4.28. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under:- “In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. He pointed

ITO 8(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SENTIA DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

234 (Del.). M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. CIT • M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. CIT (2008) 297 ITR 119 (Bom) (Assessment Year 2003-2004) • (2008) 297 ITR 119 (Bom) (Assessment Year 2003 • Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer And Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer And Others • (1999) 236 ITR 34 (S.C.) (1999) 236 ITR 34 (S.C.) 5.1.13 Some

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

DCIT- CIR- 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IMPERIAL PROCUREMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

u/s 148 fails to satisfy either of the conditions, it deserves to be quashed. However, the officers have many time issued notices for reopening the assessments even beyond four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfillment of any of the legal conditions as stipulated in the first proviso to this section. Such an action of the revenue

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

147 dated 31st of December 2008. The assessee submitted copy of form number 35 and grounds of appeal wherein as per ground number 3 this deduction is challenged. Thus, the learned authorised representative submitted that the learned PCIT could not have invoked the powers of revision u/s 263 of the act. 030. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order

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

reassessment proceedings has to be governed by the provisions of section 147 to 151 as substituted (amended) w.e.f. 01/04/1989. Still, power u/s 147 of the Act, though very wide but no plenary. We are aware that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Praful Chunilal Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel vs ACIT (1999) 236 ITR 82, 840 (Guj.) even went

JSK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

234 Taxman 771(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP against High Court's order, wherein it was held that since assessee himself had stated in sworn statement during search and seizure about his undisclosed income, tax was to be levied on basis of admission without scrutinizing documents. Further, it was held that

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 147 of the Act, a mere change of opinion will not warrant a reopening u/s 147 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceedings. The assessee company relied upon following case laws to support its contentions: i) CIT v. Foramer France , 264 ITR 566(SC) ii) IPCA Laboratories Limited v. DCIT, 251 ITR 416(Bom.) iii) Parshuram Pottery Works

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

reassessment proceedings has to be governed by the provisions of section 147 to 151 as substituted (amended) w.e.f. 01/04/1989. Still, power u/s 147 of the Act, though very wide but no plenary. We are aware that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Praful Chunilal Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel vs ACIT (1999) 236 ITR 82, 840 (Guj.) even went

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

reassessment proceedings has to be governed by the provisions of section 147 to 151 as substituted (amended) w.e.f. 01/04/1989. Still, power u/s 147 of the Act, though very wide but no plenary. We are aware that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Praful Chunilal Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel vs ACIT (1999) 236 ITR 82, 840 (Guj.) even went

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

u/s 263 of the Act lacks jurisdiction on account of following two merits: A. Time barring; B. Change of opinion; A. Notice time barring: 2.1. When a notice under section 263 raises new issues, which are not subject matter of re-assessment proceedings, then two year period contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act would begin

PELICAN CREDITS & SCURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed on jurisdictional issue

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

u/s 148 fails to satisfy either of the conditions, it deserves to be quashed. However, the officers have many time issued notices for reopening the assessments even beyond four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfillment of any of the legal conditions as stipulated in the first proviso to this section. Such an action of the revenue

PANTHER FINCAP & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1326/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Panther Fincap & Management The Asst. Commissioner Of Services Ltd. Income Tax, Central Circle Bhupen Chambers, Ground 40, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Floor, 9, Dalal Street, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 023 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./ Pan No. Aaacp3045P अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Dr. P Daniel, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

u/s 148 fails to satisfy either of the conditions, it deserves to be quashed. However, the officers have many time issued notices for reopening the assessments even beyond four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfillment of any of the legal conditions as stipulated in the first proviso to this section. Such an action of the revenue

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

u/s 148 fails to satisfy either of the conditions, it deserves to be quashed. However, the officers have many time issued notices for reopening the assessments even beyond four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfillment of any of the legal conditions as stipulated in the first proviso to this section. Such an action of the revenue

M/S. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. - 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Novartis India Ltd. Circle 7(1) Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Acit Circle 7(1), Vs. Besant Road, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Appellant .. Respondent Novartis India Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Circle 7(1) Road, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Acit Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Revenue By .. Shri Sanj Kumar Agarwal, Dr Assessee By .. Shri J.D. Mistry, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 13-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 13-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

u/s 148 fails to satisfy either of the conditions, it deserves to be quashed. However, the officers have many time issued notices for reopening the assessments even beyond four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfillment of any of the legal conditions as stipulated in the first proviso to this section. Such an action of the revenue

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Novartis India Ltd. Circle 7(1) Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Acit Circle 7(1), Vs. Besant Road, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Appellant .. Respondent Novartis India Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Circle 7(1) Road, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Acit Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Revenue By .. Shri Sanj Kumar Agarwal, Dr Assessee By .. Shri J.D. Mistry, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 13-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 13-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

u/s 148 fails to satisfy either of the conditions, it deserves to be quashed. However, the officers have many time issued notices for reopening the assessments even beyond four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfillment of any of the legal conditions as stipulated in the first proviso to this section. Such an action of the revenue

ASST CIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. MANI EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mani Exports 16(3), Mumbai, Matru Mandir, 1903 Panchratna Opera House, Vs. 2Nd Floor, R. No. 206 Tardeoi Mumbai-400 004 Rd, Mumbai-07 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaefm2320F Revenue By .. Shri Dr. Suman Ratnam, Dr Assessee By .. Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 09-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 26-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

u/s 148 fails to satisfy either of the conditions, it deserves to be quashed. However, the officers have many time issued notices for reopening the assessments even beyond four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfillment of any of the legal conditions as stipulated in the first proviso to this Page 7 of 12 Mani Exports