DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟ by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.93,22,558/- which was earlier claimed by the assessee as an expenditure in its „books of account‟. 4. That as the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the amount of Rs.93

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟ by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.93,22,558/- which was earlier claimed by the assessee as an expenditure in its „books of account‟. 4. That as the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the amount of Rs.93

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟ by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.93,22,558/- which was earlier claimed by the assessee as an expenditure in its „books of account‟. 4. That as the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the amount of Rs.93

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟ by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.93,22,558/- which was earlier claimed by the assessee as an expenditure in its „books of account‟. 4. That as the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the amount of Rs.93

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟ by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.93,22,558/- which was earlier claimed by the assessee as an expenditure in its „books of account‟. 4. That as the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the amount of Rs.93

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 19. Inevitable conclusion is that High Court has wrongly applied Adani Exports case (supra) which has no application to the case on the facts in view of the conceptual difference between section 143(1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 24 Navnidhi Steel & Engg

NAVBHARAT POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms

section 23(1)(c). In other words, vacancy allowance can be given\nonly when the property is let and vacant for part of the year. No contrary\njudgment of any other High court or the Hon'ble Apex Court has been\nbrought to our notice. Accordingly, the claim of vacancy allowance in\nrespect of 12 units which remained vacant

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

C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) 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 : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Assessee

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

147 of the Act was passed on 19th march, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹17,81,070/- by making addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Reassessment order was challenged before the learned CIT (A) unsuccessfully and consequently, before the ITAT. As per the order of the ITAT dated 25th October, 2021, in ITA No.2947/Mum/2019

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

147 of the Act was passed on 19th march, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹17,81,070/- by making addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Reassessment order was challenged before the learned CIT (A) unsuccessfully and consequently, before the ITAT. As per the order of the ITAT dated 25th October, 2021, in ITA No.2947/Mum/2019

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

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

c) clearly provides that the instruction by the Board u/s 119 has to be complied with. The instruction by the Board u/s 119 has to be complied with. The instruction by the Board u/s 119 has to be complied with. The contention of the asse contention of the assessee that he had furnished the response before ssee that

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The AO by relying on the\ndecision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT\nand Anr. Which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India concluded that failure on\nthe part of the assesse is not restricted only to the return

BENCO FINANCE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

C. REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IM LAW: 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer that reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Appellant prays that it be held that reopening of assessment under section 147

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

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

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), 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-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The AO by relying on the\ndecision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT\nand Anr. Which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India concluded that failure on\nthe part of the assesse is not restricted only to the return