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-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA MOTORS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

reassessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 31 December 2007. Tribunal further observed that there was no scope left with the CIT(A) to enhance the very same items in the appellate proceedings pending before him against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the premise was that the interest

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, one of the necessary ingredients is information of belief by the Assessing Officer that certain income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and further such belief should be discernible from the material and information on record when the Assessing Officer record his reasons, meaning thereby, there should be live link between the reasons

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section

ITO 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SEA SAGAR CONSTRUCTION CO., MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3751/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) बिाम/ Ito 14(2)(2) M/S. Sea Sagar R.No. 304, 3 Rd Floor, Construction Company, Earnest House, Abhay House, 1St Floor, V. Nariman Point, 428, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacfs2838L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue , Being Ita No. 3751/Mum/2014, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.03.2014, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) Vide Cit(A)-25/It-204/14(2)(2)/11-12, For Assessment Year 2000-01, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2000-01. This Is Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

reassessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 254 of the 1961 Act. 5. The assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A) in second round of litigation challenging additions made by the AO and detailed contentions by way of written submissions along with paper book were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) including

BHASKAR ARVIND KUMAR HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

reassessment u/s 147, the limitation period provided in Sec. 263(2) had to be reckoned from the date of order u/s 143(3) and not with reference to date of the order passed u/s 147/143(3). 33 A.Y. 2014-15 Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad 33. Useful reference in this regard may also be made to the decision

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

reassessment proceedings, it may be clearly seen that the AO nowhere raised any query regarding the genuineness of the transaction relating to the receipt of the aforesaid share premium to the extent of Rs. 32,21,48,679. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the comments of the AO in the Remand Report that the appellant did not furnish

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total income was was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/ assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/-. In view of the assesse . In view of the assessed income, the Assessing Officer

ACIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Samir Narain Bhojani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, Cc-3(4), Central Range-3, Mumbai Vs. St.Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Family Hospital, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400050 .. Appellant Respondent Co No.189/Mum/2015 (In Ita No.3814/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2006-07) Shri Samir Narain Bhojani Dy. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, Samir Complex, Tax, Cc-3(4), Central Range-3, St.Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Family Mumbai Vs. Hospital, Bandra(W), Mumbai- 400050 Pan No.Aabpb9150H Appellant .. Respondent

reassessment of total income under the aforesaid provision. Similar position will obtain in a case where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of search. In other words, harmonious interpretation will produce the following results: - a) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make original assessment and assessment u/s 153A merge into

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

reassessment of total income under the aforesaid provision. Similar position will obtain in a case where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of search. In other words, harmonious interpretation will produce the following results: - a) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make original assessment and assessment u/s 153A merge into

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

reassessment of total income under the aforesaid provision. Similar position will obtain in a case where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of search. In other words, harmonious interpretation will produce the following results: - a) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make original assessment and assessment u/s 153A merge into

ACIT CC 24 & 26, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

reassessment of total income under the aforesaid provision. Similar position will obtain in a case where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of search. In other words, harmonious interpretation will produce the following results: - a) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make original assessment and assessment u/s 153A merge into

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

reassessment of total income under the aforesaid provision. Similar position will obtain in a case where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of search. In other words, harmonious interpretation will produce the following results: - a) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make original assessment and assessment u/s 153A merge into

DCIT-9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATC INDIA TOWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax -9(2) Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ------- Appellant/ Revenue (Revenue Through Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Sr Dr Versus M/S Atc India Tower Corporation, 404, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400049 Pan: Aajcs7669H -------- Respondent / Assessee (Assessee Through Sh. Satyen Sethi Advocate Reserve For Order : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income -Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-16, Mumbai Dated 22Nd January 2016, Which Arise From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Dated 25Th March 2013 For Assessment Year

260A, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ------- Appellant/ Revenue (Revenue through Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Sr DR Versus M/s ATC India Tower Corporation, 404, 4th Floor, Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400049 PAN: AAJCS7669H -------- Respondent / Assessee (Assessee through Sh. Satyen Sethi Advocate Reserve for order : 02.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order under Section

CAPRI GLOBAL ADVISORY SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 is bad in law, illegal, ultra-vires and contrary to the provisions of the I.T.Act and shall be quashed. (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act recording factually incorrect reasons for reopening that ‘the issue of share premium was not subject matter of verification

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KHIMJI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the CIT Appeals had also noted that proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot lead to re- verification of the records. These findings of the CIT Appeals have not been