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

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the 44 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 information regarding acquisition of the asset

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 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year

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 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year

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)

282 ITR 423 (Del) Sri Padmabathi Srinivasa Cotton Ginning & Pressing vs.- DCIT (2009) 29DTR l(Visakha) (IT AT) 4. Imposition of interest u/s Consequential in nature. 234B of Rs.35,77,341/- The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee is challenging legality and validity of reopening of the concluded assessment u/s. 147 and grounds of appeal

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

reassessment is within the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 147. Explanation (1 ) to the said provision makes it clear that production of account books or other evidence from which the Assessing Officer could with due diligence discover material evidence would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso that stipulates an extended period

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 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant Dinesh S. Jain assessment year

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

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year

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

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

282 ITR 176 (Guj), held that the noting in the diary constituted sufficient information for the escapement of income by either non-declaration of correct sale regards sale consideration. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the relevant assessment year. The reassessment

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

282 ITR 176 (Guj), held that the noting in the diary constituted sufficient information for the escapement of income by either non-declaration of correct sale regards sale consideration. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the relevant assessment year. The reassessment

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

282 ITR 176 (Guj), held that the noting in the diary constituted sufficient information for the escapement of income by either non-declaration of correct sale regards sale consideration. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the relevant assessment year. The reassessment

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 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant

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

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 13 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 13 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset

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

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 13 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset

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

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 13 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 13 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 13 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year