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

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

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

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), dated 30/03/2009 on the basis of change of opinion and beyond four years. 2. During hearing, Shri B.S. Sharma along with Shri Dalpat Shah, Ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that the reopening is invalid as the notice was issued beyond a period of four years

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), dated 30/03/2009 on the basis of change of opinion and beyond four years. 2. During hearing, Shri B.S. Sharma along with Shri Dalpat Shah, Ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that the reopening is invalid as the notice was issued beyond a period of four years

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act vide notice dated 04/03/2015 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the consequent re-assessment order dated 28/03/2016 stand quashed. Next we would take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 10. The appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 arises from common 11. order dated 06/02/2023

ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MUIMBAI STOCK BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

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 27/05/2008, addressed

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore

DCIT 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INTELNET GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

u/s 147/148 after a period of four years. Since, we have upheld that an opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer that too after due deliberation, therefore, we shall analyzed the validity of reopening of assessment. Considering the totality of facts, we find that reassessment proceedings will be invalid, in case, the assessment order itself records that the issue

R.P. SUVARNA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (33), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

u/s 143(3) of the Act, meaning thereby, a opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer. The reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated in case return of income is processed under section 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken. In such cases there is 4 Mr. R.P. Suvarna no change of opinion. Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

147 of the Act, on 26/03/2014, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.7,76,35,16,193/-.The assessee filed applications u/s.154 of the Act,on 25/ 04/2014 and 17/06/2015 stating the that there were mistakes in the order of the AO.He issued two rectification-notices to the assessee-on first on 17/03/2015 and the second on 18/11/2015

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

reassessment or re computation under section 147;\nc. an order being an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A;\nd. an order under section 201;\ne. an order being an intimation under sub-section (6A) of section 206C;\nf. an order under sub-section (1) of section 206CB;\ng. an order imposing a penalty under Chapter

DCIT 13(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. PEBBLE BAY DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

Section 148 mechanically simply notice under Section 148 mechanically simply on the basis of information alleged to have been received from the on the basis of information alleged to have been received from the on the basis of information alleged to have been received from the Investigation Wing without application of mind. On the facts of the case, Investigation Wing

JAYANT MANILAL GANDHY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and 7 Jayant Manilal Gandhy also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice