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

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

u/s 148 of the Act on 28/03/2018, read as under: Assessment of income of any other person. 54 I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 Mr. Nilesh Bharani 153C. (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

54,660/- respectively. Subsequently, respectively. Subsequently, the returns of income filed by the assessee of income filed by the assessee were were selected for scrutiny assessment scrutiny assessment. In the assessment completed u/s143(3) of n the assessment completed u/s143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

54,660/- respectively. Subsequently, respectively. Subsequently, the returns of income filed by the assessee of income filed by the assessee were were selected for scrutiny assessment scrutiny assessment. In the assessment completed u/s143(3) of n the assessment completed u/s143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer

RAJEEV BRIJBHUSHAN BHATNAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rajeev Brijbhushan Bhatnagar, Ito-28(2)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Chartered Accountants 16Th Floor, Commercial Complex, Vashi, D Wing, Trade World Tower, Navi Mumbai-400703. Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Acfpb 2967 G Appellant Respondent

section 54 of Income Tax Act 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that against reassessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that against reassessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that against reassessment order passed u/s 147

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

u/s \n37. In view of all the above, for the A.Y. 2010-11 I have reason \nto believe that income assessable to tax amounting to more than \nrupees fifty thousand has escaped assessment and hence notice \nu/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied)\n31. From the material on record it is apparent that the Assessing \nOfficer had initiated reassessment

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

u/s 37. In view of all the\nabove, for the A.Y. 2012-13 I have reason to believe that\nincome assessable to tax amounting to more than rupees\nfifty thousand has escaped assessment and hence notice\nu/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied)\n\n31. From the material on record it is apparent that the Assessing\nOfficer had initiated

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

u/s 14A \nr.w Rule 8D, uphold his order to the said extent. The Ground \nof appeal No. 3 is dismissed. \n136. In view of the above, we hold that provisions of Section 14A of \nthe Act are not applicable in the cases of a general insurance \ncompany governed by the special provisions laid down in Section

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

sections 30 to 43A and,\ntherefore, unless there was a specific\nprohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be\njustified in. adding back the amount under\nrule 5(a), Therefore, even if the debit for\namortization is considered as an\nexpenditure, there is no specific prohibition\nagainst allowing such an expenditure\nunder the provisions of sections

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

reassessment proceedings on the ground that reopening was based on ‘borrowed satisfaction faction’ and total lack of ‘application of mind application of mind’ by the Assessing Officer. the Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) has dismissed these objections The ld CIT(A) has dismissed these objections of the assessee observing as under: of the assessee observing as under: Grounds

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

u/s. 143(1) and was assessed under section 143(3) on 18.03.2015 assessing income at Rs.9,75,88,480/ 18.03.2015 assessing income at Rs.9,75,88,480/- The revenue audit has vide LAR 54 cycle has held that the assessee The revenue audit has vide LAR 54 cycle has held that the assessee The revenue audit has vide LAR 54

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

u/s. 143(1) and was assessed under section 143(3) on 18.03.2015 assessing income at Rs.9,75,88,480/ 18.03.2015 assessing income at Rs.9,75,88,480/- The revenue audit has vide LAR 54 cycle has held that the assessee The revenue audit has vide LAR 54 cycle has held that the assessee The revenue audit has vide LAR 54

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

54 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 could not be said that there was no relevant material to initiate proceedings under section 147. In the case of Kartikeya International v. CIT, (2010) 329 ITR 539 (All), in view of the matter, the petitioner was not entitled for the deduction on the duty

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)

section 147 of the Act would not be satisfied for the purpose of reopening the assessment u/s 147. 3.24] Reliance is also placed in the case of Fenner (lndia) Ltd, -vs.- DCIT (2000) 241 1TR 672 (Mad}. In the said case the reassessment was made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Hon'ble High

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 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 34 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 4.28. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under:- “In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening

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 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 34 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 4.28. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under:- “In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / 93. reassessment of income after the income-tax searches on the assessee searched and also for the persons not searched based on detection of some incriminating information during the said searches conducted upto 31/03/2021, the following legal course of action