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

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

147 at which stage the assessee offered the said amount to tax. The AO & CIT levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of her income and concealed her income. However, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty on the ground that a "bona fide mistake" had been made on her behalf

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 or section 153A or section 153C with the approval of the 33[Principal Commissioner or]Commissioner as referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order; [ (f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (vi)or sub-clause (via)of clause

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act on more or less identical facts and situation held as under: “In the report the Income-tax Officer does not set out any reason for coming to the conclusion that this is a fit case to issue notice under section 148. The material that he had before him for issuing notice under section

CABLE CORPORATION INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act on more or less identical facts and situation held as under: “In the report the Income-tax Officer does not set out any reason for coming to the conclusion that this is a fit case to issue notice under section 148. The material that he had before him for issuing notice under section

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is quashed, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009-10 will not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 14. Now we take up the appeal in ITA.No. 3455/Mum/2017 for the A.Y.2012-13. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is quashed, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009-10 will not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 14. Now we take up the appeal in ITA.No. 3455/Mum/2017 for the A.Y.2012-13. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the CIT(A), Mumbai. The Ld.CIT(A)- 47, Mumbai, vide Order dated 26.12.2017 decided the Assessee's Appeal. The Order giving effect to the Order of CIT(A) was passed on 12.04.2018 revising the income to Rs.1396,87,41,577/-. viii) In consequence of Order u/s 263 of the Income

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 3 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A

GENERAL LIFESCIENCE DISTRIBUTORS GMBH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-54, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the enumerated terms, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

reassessment proceedings were initiated and an ex-parte order was passed on 27.12.2019 under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 21961 4 ITA 2422 & 2423/Mum/2023 General Lifescience Distributors Gmbh (Act), thereby completing the assessment and making an addition of Rs 8,32,24,480 to the total income of the said company. 12. That thereafter, penalty proceedings

RANJANBEN CHUNILAL GADA,MUMBAI vs. TIO 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

246A against the Order U/S 147 r.w.s\n1448 dated 18-05-2023 making addition of Rs.69,67,752/- U/S 69A and\nRs.1,39,355/- U/S 69C in spite of the fact that-\n(i) The information received by the Assessing Officer from INSIGHT\nPORTAL is non-specific and general information lacking any specific\ninformation about the Assessee

MANISH VASHDEV KHEMCHANDANI,AMBERNATH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethmanish Vashdev Vs. Assessing Officer, Ito Ward 2(2) Khemchandani, Kalyan, New Mansarovar Chs Ltd, B Wing. Kalyan-Dombivali-421301. Parmeshwari Villa, Flat No. 101, Near Mira Vatika, B/H Shiv Mandir Ambernath East, Thane-421501. Pan/Gir No: Ayhpk4646D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Ravi Hemnani Respondent By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

section 147/144 is an appealable order u/s 246A and the appellant had a statutory right to challenge the addition. 3. Ground No. 3 - Violation of principles of natural justice The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without granting proper opportunity of hearing and without deciding the matter on merits, thereby violating the principles

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings. Placing reliance upon the observation of the Learned PCIT in order, dated 25/11/2019, passed while disposing off the application filed under Section 264 of the Act, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Learned CIT(A) should have entertained the second appeal after condoning delay in filing the appeal. The Learned Authorized Representative

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