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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 31. From the material on record it is apparent that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 30/03/2017. Thus, reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of 4 years

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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 31. From the material on record it is apparent that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 30/03/2017. Thus, reassessment proceedings were initiated within a period of 4 years

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

260 (Bombay)[07-04-2022] while rejecting the challenge \nto the validity of reassessment proceedings. The relevant extract \nof the said judgment reads as under:\n“2. Here is a case where Petitioner had filed return of income \nshowing a total income of Rs.1,93,550/- and return of income \nhas been processed under section 143(1). Therefore, even \nthough

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

260 (Bombay)[07-04-2022] while rejecting the challenge\nto the validity of reassessment proceedings. The relevant extract\nof the said judgment reads as under:\n\n“2. Here is a case where Petitioner had filed return of income\n\n==End of OCR for page 38==\n\nshowing a total income of Rs.1,93,550/- and return of income

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

260 (Bombay)[07-04-2022] while rejecting the challenge\nto the validity of reassessment proceedings. The relevant extract\nof the said judgment reads as under:\n“2. Here is a case where Petitioner had filed return of income\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834,\n2827

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

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

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 of the Act. We find that during original assessment proceedings the issue of share application and share premium was very much the subject matter of enquiry by the AO and Ld. AO specifically enquired by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act. For this a query raised during original assessment proceedings by the AO i.e. DCIT

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) ..

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

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

u/s 133A and no other M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 2.29. 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

ASST CIT 14(1), MUMBAI vs. KANTILAL C JAIN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

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) Shri Kantilal C. Jain held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen

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

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act for the above assessment\nyear.\nIn this respect, please note that your case was reopened on the\nbasis of information received from the Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax-\n14(2), Mumbai.\nClause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act\nclearly states that 'where a return of income

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

260 and 241 of 2003), vide order dated 20/06/2016 considered the decision of the Tribunal and various judicial decisions including the case of Vijay Proteins and Sanjay Oilcakes Industries ltd., M/s Woolen Carpet Factory vs ITAT (2002) 178 CTR 420 (Raj.), the Tribunal C.O. No.112/Mum/2017 was held to be justified in deciding the case against the assessee

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

260. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) while reopening the assessment were also shared with the assessee vide letter dated 01/06/2021. During the reassessment proceedings, statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, inter-alia, requesting the assessee to explain