ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

reassessment order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the act was passed on 31 December 2018. Therefore, apparently if the learned PCIT would like to revise the order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act which was passed on 25th of March 2015, the time limit set under the provisions of Section 263 (2

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) 11-12-2017 Assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act 8. On a careful reading of the impugned order of learned PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act, it becomes very much clear that he has revised the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147

METROPOLITAN STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

u/s 263 of the Act lacks jurisdiction on account of following two merits: A. Time barring; B. Change of opinion; A. Notice time barring: 2.1. When a notice under section 263 raises new issues, which are not subject matter of re-assessment proceedings, then two year period contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act would begin

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

u/s 263 of the Act needs to be annulled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT erred in taking a view that a sum of Rs. 8,42,46,581 being share of loss from partnership was required to be added to book profits

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

u/s 263 it has been alleged that source of purchase and sale of transactions remained to be verified.\n9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, or delete any grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”\n11. During the course of hearing before us the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the reassessment proceedings

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

2 and 3 of the appeal, the assessee, through he assessee, through its Ld. Counsel, has challenged the very validity of the reassessment its Ld. Counsel, has challenged the very validity of the reassessment its Ld. Counsel, has challenged the very validity of the reassessment proceedings undertaken under section 147 of the Act, contending ceedings undertaken under section 147

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

263\netc. is seen and a copy of the relevant order is placed on file and\nensure that the total income assessed under section 153A of the\nI.T. Act is not less than the total income determined in\nproceedings prior to the order under section 153A of the Act.\nThe office note should also give finding that identity,\ncreditworthiness

ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Essar Shipping Limited V. Pr. Cit-5 Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg Room No. 501 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aacce3707D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

reassessment order itself is bad in law, whether such order can be revised u/s. 263 of the Act. The Tribunal held that since no notice u/s. 143(2) was prepared, issued and served upon the assessee, the assessment framed u/s. 147 of the Act is illegal, invalid and bad in law. Assessee can challenge the validity of re-assessment proceedings

VALIANT GLASS WORKS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargvaliant Glass Works Pvt. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O. Shankarlal Jain & Income Tax, Associates, 12, Engineer Central Circle-38, Mumbai Building, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai 400 002 Pan:Aaacv 1224 E Appellant .. Respondent

reassessment proceedings which stood abated and pass fresh order u/s 153A. 3. If the initiation of the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 is held to be illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the AO still could take into consideration the information relating to the issues which were the subject matter such proceedings u/s 147

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

u/s 147 because the two provisions operate in different fields. 15. Even, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.) considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alagendran Finance Ltd. and also the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act are held to be legally valid. Both grounds Section 147 of the Act are held to be legally valid. Both grounds Section 147 of the Act are held to be legally valid. Both grounds raised in the applicatio raised in the application under Rule 27 stand rejected. n under Rule

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 [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 150; [(ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel]] [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section

BHUVNESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX P-CIT,MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited Pcit,Mumbai-1 710/A Wing Dattani Plaza Room No. 330, 3 R D Floor, Aayakar Vs. Commercial Premises, Safed Pool, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb4386N

2) inserted by the Parliament under section 263 cannot overwrite the main section i.e. section 263 (1) of the act. The learned principal Commissioner of income tax can exercises Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited. A.Y. 2010-11 revision of jurisdiction in the average the assessment order is erroneous, well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and not otherwise

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

section 263 shall commence from the date of the original assessment order, as none of the issues stated in the notice u/s 263 of the Act emanates from the reasons for the reopening. Thus, the limitation period for the order u/s 263 would start from 17.01.2018 being the date of the original assessment order u/s

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

SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment cannot be examined in proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. It is well- proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL),-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) and 142(1) of the Act dated 17/11/2014. In the said notice the ld. AO had asked for report under section 115JB of the Act and various other details. The assessee submitted the report under section 115JB of the Act and various other details vide submission dated 21/01/2015. Further, various notices were issued under Section

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

2 to Section 263 of the Act has been invoked only in the revision order passed in the 263 of the Act without giving show-cause notice to the assessee in that regard. Hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd., reported in 130 taxmann.com