SURESH L. SATYANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

546(Guj) and Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing Society v. CIT (1993) 109 ITR 17(Guj.) , Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers Private Limited in ITA no. 120/2012 dated 07-01-2013 and CIT v. N R Portfolio Private Limited in ITA no. 1018/1019 of 2011 dated 22.11.2013. The A.O. relying

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act vide notice dated 04/03/2015 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the consequent re-assessment order dated 28/03/2016 stand quashed. Next we would take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 10. The appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 arises from common 11. order dated 06/02/2023

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

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

u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

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

u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore

THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2551&2129/Mum/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation Of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. Of Income Tax Ltu Shipping House, 10Th Floor, 245, 29Th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F Assistant Commissioner Of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax Ltu Of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28Th Floor, World Trade Shipping House, 10Th Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Floor, 245, Madam Cama 400005 Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F

546/ 52,96,131/- from core activities 9.95.30,047/- * *” Excess of Incidental Activities ITA nos.2551&2129/MUM/2012 Asstt. Years 2006-07 13 17. The AO during the original assessment proceeding has questioned about the different components of core shipping activities and the turnover vide notice dated 1st September, 2008 under section 142(1) of the Act. The relevant query/question raised

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2551&2129/Mum/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation Of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. Of Income Tax Ltu Shipping House, 10Th Floor, 245, 29Th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F Assistant Commissioner Of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax Ltu Of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28Th Floor, World Trade Shipping House, 10Th Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Floor, 245, Madam Cama 400005 Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F

546/ 52,96,131/- from core activities 9.95.30,047/- * *” Excess of Incidental Activities ITA nos.2551&2129/MUM/2012 Asstt. Years 2006-07 13 17. The AO during the original assessment proceeding has questioned about the different components of core shipping activities and the turnover vide notice dated 1st September, 2008 under section 142(1) of the Act. The relevant query/question raised

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

reassessment order and as well as on merit. 2. So far as, legality of reopening u/s 148 of the Act is concerned, during hearing, Shri Shashi Tulsyan, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, invited our attention to the letter dated 18/01/2007, which was claimed to be mere an intimation by placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

147 without there being any reason to\nbelieve that the income had escaped assessment.\n3. Without prejudice, the Ld. CITA has failed to appreciate that\nthe reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the Ld. A.O.\nhad failed to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme\nCourt of India in case of GKN Drive Shaft

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

147 without there being any reason to\nbelieve that the income had escaped assessment.\n3. Without prejudice, the Ld. CITA has failed to appreciate that\nthe reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the Ld. A.O.\nhad failed to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme\nCourt of India in case of GKN Drive Shaft

DIAGOLD DESIGNS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Diagold Designs Limited, Cc2070, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-12(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Aabcd3716 ..... Respondent

546 (Bom.) PCIT v. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia “We are in agreement with the view expressed by the CIT (Appeals) that, if the purchases are bogus, it would be impossible for the assessee to complete the business transaction and that if the purchase is bogus, the corresponding sale also must be bogus or else the transaction would be impossible to complete

PRANKIT EXPORTS, MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1441/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Prankit Exports, Ito 25(3)(2) 301 Shviling Apartments, Mumbai Juhu 10T H Road, V. Vile Parle(W), Mumbai-400049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaafp2359K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment proceeding even when the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in solely relying on the information of the investigation wing, Mumbai. The AO had not conducted any independent enquiry before issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 2. Assessment order

ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACTUBE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

147 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A). The assessee submitted before learned CIT(A) that it has duly submitted copies of purchase bills , ledger account copies of supplier, copies of bank statement and statement showing details of disposal of purchases alongwith copies of Sales Bills for corresponding supplies to Railways and documentary evidences

J.V GOKAL SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

section 35D of the Act of expenditure incurred on due diligence. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND 1,2&3: 3 JV Gokal Securities pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO Ground 4: The appellant prays that expenditure on due diligence be added to the cost of acquisition of investment for the purposes of computing capital gains as per the provisions

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment u/s 148 and hence such assessment made was bad in law and liable to be quashed. was bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Hon. CIT Appeals erred

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment u/s 148 and hence such assessment made was bad in law and liable to be quashed. was bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Hon. CIT Appeals erred

EXIM TRAC,MUMBAI vs. MUM-C-(431)(91), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20

147, accepting the returned income. 2.3 The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A, alleging "under proceedings under Section 270A, alleging "under-reporting of reporting of income in consequence of misreporting." The income in consequence of misreporting." The AO rejected the AO rejected

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are for the\nbenefit of revenue and not the assessee, wherein the mandate is to bring to tax\nincome which has escaped assessment while presently we are concerned with\nproceedings initiated u/s 143(3) r.w.s.143(2). We order accordingly.\"\n15.\nThe ratio as laid down by the coordinate bench is that if by following judicial

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are for the\nbenefit of revenue and not the assessee, wherein the mandate is to bring to tax\nincome which has escaped assessment while presently we are concerned with\nproceedings initiated u/s 143(3) r.w.s.143(2). We order accordingly.\"\n15.\nThe ratio as laid down by the coordinate bench is that if by following judicial