AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

c. Non- disclosure of material facts necessary for the assessment. 3.6] In the present case the notice initiating reassessment proceedings have been issued and served on 22-03-2012 i.e., much after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. Further, in the instant case, the appellant I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 had filed its return of income

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275(1)(c) of the Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. 9. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. Reported in (2024) 159 taxmann.com

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI vs. DEVANG AJIT JAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275(1)(c) of the Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. 9. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. Reported in (2024) 159 taxmann.com

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

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

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

C Wing, 4th Floor, Vashi Station Building, Runwal Center, Govandi Station Vs. Navi Mumbai. Road, Deonar, Mumbai - 400088. PAN : BDGPP8031C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue/Respondent by : Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX vs. DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

147\ntaxmann.com 220 (Delhi) wherein the Court has followed\nvarious other judgments to decide the precise issue of limitation\nin the case of penalty u/s 271D and 271T. The Hon'ble High\nCourt has even taken note of the contention of the Revenue\nwhich has also been raised before us that date of issuance of\nshow-cause notice should

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

147\ntaxmann.com 220 (Delhi) wherein the Court has followed\nvarious other judgments to decide the precise issue of limitation\nin the case of penalty u/s 271D and 271T. The Hon'ble High\nCourt has even taken note of the contention of the Revenue\nwhich has also been raised before us that date of issuance of\nshow-cause notice should

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

reassessment proceedings have been initiated only with a view to revive original assessment proceedings which got time barred and hence ought to be quashed, Without prejudice, passing the final assessment order as against the draft assessment order Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 9. without prejudice, erred in upholding the validity of the draft order dated

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

u/s 148 is valid. It is pertinent to refer to the Explanation 1 to Section 147 which provides that "Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso". Therefore

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

u/s 148 is valid. It is pertinent to refer to the Explanation 1 to Section 147 which provides that "Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso". Therefore

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