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

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

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

7, 8 (MP) 7.8 In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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

7, 8 (MP) 4.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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

7, 8 (MP) 4.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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

7, 8 (MP) 15 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 2.11. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing

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

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

7, 8 (MP) 4.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

7, 8 (MP) 2.8. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

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.

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the Assessee was reopened by issuance of notice dated 31.03.2014 u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, after recording necessary

ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN vs. RICH & ROYAL, KALYAN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

7, 8 (MP) 2.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 35DDA was a specific provision and the deduction was to be allowed in accordance with the provision of that section only. Pittied against the same is the argument of the Ld. AR that these three components were statutory payments and incorporated in the individual contracts of employment by virtue of which the employees were entitled to the said payment

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason