RAJEEV BRIJBHUSHAN BHATNAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rajeev Brijbhushan Bhatnagar, Ito-28(2)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Chartered Accountants 16Th Floor, Commercial Complex, Vashi, D Wing, Trade World Tower, Navi Mumbai-400703. Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Acfpb 2967 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 20.12.2017, the assessee order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 20.12.2017 order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 20.12.2017 preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee also preferred preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee al preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee al appeal against

DCIT, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. GHANSHYAM RASIKLAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2012-13, date of order 18/07/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 33(1), Mumbai (in short, the Ld. AO) passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, date of order 18/12/2019

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 ()

147. This argument is devoid of merit. The concept of "full and true disclosure" presupposes the genuineness concept of "full and true disclosure" presupposes the genuineness concept of "full and true disclosure" presupposes the genuineness of the transaction disclosed. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing ansaction disclosed. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing ansaction disclosed. In the reasons recorded

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

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

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

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

reassessment is within the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 147. Explanation (1 ) to the said provision makes it clear that production of account books or other evidence from which the Assessing Officer could with due diligence discover material evidence would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso that stipulates an extended period

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

250 CTR 116 (Bom.) Monitor India(P) Ltd v. UOI ( 2012) 68 DTR 313 (Bom) • Monitor India(P) Ltd v. UOI ( 2012) 68 DTR 313 (Bom) • HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TMF HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

250 of the Act quashing the impugned proceedings under section 147 of the Act on account of change of opinion be upheld. Submission in reply to the learned departmental representative's observations on merits of the case. 23. At the outset, it is submitted that the Respondent has elaborately discussed the merits of the case in its brief synopsis submitted

DISHA N . LALWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–48, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing