BENCO FINANCE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

section 234B of the Act. F. GENERAL: The Appellant‘s craves leaves to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.‖ 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company had e-filed its return of income for A.Y 2006-07 on 24.10.2006, declaring an income of Rs. 25,310/-. Search and seizure action u/s

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

u/s 263 it has been alleged that source of purchase and sale of transactions remained to be verified.\n9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, or delete any grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”\n11. During the course of hearing before us the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the reassessment proceedings

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)

234B of Rs.35,77,341/- The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee is challenging legality and validity of reopening of the concluded assessment u/s. 147 and grounds of appeal no. 1(a) and 1(b) filed with memo of appeal with tribunal are directed towards challenging legality and validity of reopening of concluded assessment u/s. 147

M/S GUJARAT REALTORES,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

234B of the Act. 8. In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised the ground No. 2 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the the ground No. 2 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the the ground No. 2 challenging

M/S. GUJARAT REALTORS (FIRM),BHAYANDER vs. DCIT, CC-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

234B of the Act. 8. In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised the ground No. 2 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the the ground No. 2 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the the ground No. 2 challenging

M/S GUJARAT REALTORES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, , THANE

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

234B of the Act. 8. In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised the ground No. 2 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the the ground No. 2 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the the ground No. 2 challenging

SHRI MOHAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

u/s 147, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A. The Income tax Act, 1961, by section 153A, 153B and 153C provides for new scheme of assessment of cases, where

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 10(34) of the Act.\n15.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n16.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

ABHUBHAI HIRABHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 132 of\nthe Act,only recourse available with him was section 153C of the Act.\nPage 15\nITA No. 4684/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2014-15\nAbhubhai Hirabhai Desai\n7.5 It is worthwhile to mention here that coordinate Benches of\nMumbai ITAT in certain recent decisions have taken similar view in the\nlight of the judgement in the case of Sejal

BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 10(34) of the Act.\n15.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n16.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 10(34) of the Act.\n15.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n16.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 10(34) of the Act.\n15.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n16.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 4912/मुं/2013 ("न.व.2004-05) Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (Earlier Known As Johnson & Johnson Limited) 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai 400 060 Pan: Aaacj0866E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, 29Th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

234B of the Act. 3. Shri Rajan Vora, appearing on behalf of the assessee made three fold submissions assailing reopening under section 147 of the Act. The first plank of his argument is against initiation of 2nd reopening proceedings during the subsistence of first reassessment proceedings. The ld. AR contended that the assessee filed its return of income on 01/11/2004

RATNAGIRI STAINLESS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. ITA 4463/Mum/2016 3 7. The appellant crave leave to add, amend , alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not wish to press ground no. 1,2,5 and 6 raised

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

147 r.w.s 1448 vide order dated 30.03.2022 accepting the returned income of Rs. 28,06,90,035/- wherein the Faceless Assessing Officer has ignored the addition/disallowance of Rs.24,28,51,098/- made in the original assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 17.01.2018. 4 M/s. HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Private Limited 4. In view of the aforesaid reasons

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

234B, 234C, 234D and 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is consequential. The Appellant denies its liability for such interest. 5 . The Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that ground raised disputing initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is premature. The Appellant denies its liability for such penalty.” Assessee

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

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA MOTORS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

reassessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 31 December 2007. Tribunal further observed that there was no scope left with the CIT(A) to enhance the very same items in the appellate proceedings pending before him against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the premise was that the interest