ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\npremium\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nDepartment\nCO\n10,00,00,000/-Assessee\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nCO\nDepartment\nAssessee\n10,00,00,000/-\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nDepartment\n10,00,00,000/-\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\nCO\nAssessee\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nCO\nDepartment\nAssessee\n10,00,00,000/-\n45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viib)\non account\nof share\npremium\nInt paid\non loan\ntaken\nfrom\nHolding\nCo.\nTotal\n2011-12\n2653/Mum/23\nCO\nAssessee\n10,00,00,000/- 45,67,728\n10,45,67,728\nDepartment\n119/Mum/23*\n2012-13\n2635/Mum/23\nDepartment\n30,00,00,000\n30,00,00,000\n2013-14\n2651/Mum/23\nDepartment\n9,60,00,000\n9,60,00,000\n2014-15\n2650/Mum/23

ARM INFRA & UTILITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

viib) of the Income-tax Act,1961, the instrument has been called as CCD instead of equity share. In case there is an arrangement, the substance of the transaction have to be deciphered, rather than form [CIT Page 5] Debenture represents debt of the Company [CIT Page 4].  The debenture holder gets interest. In the instant case, the investor

M/S. PARVESH CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56(2)(viib) of the I. T. Act,\n1961; whereas no addition was made in the reassessment order u/s\n56(2)(viib). The said issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble\nBombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Limited, ITA no.\n1714 of 2009 and the decision of Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar

M/S. DOIT CREATIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdoit Creations (India) Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income Tax, Central 307 & 308, 3Rd Floor,, Circle 3, Room No. 1901, Midas, Sahar Plaza, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (East) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd8695A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Neena Jeph Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit(Central), Mumbai -3, Dated 31.03.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Central - 3 (Herein After Referred As 'Pcit) Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As 'The Act') By Issuing The Notice Inspite Of The Fact That Assessment U/S. 143(3) & U/S 143(3) R.Ws 147 Of The Act Has Been Completed After Due Examination & Application Of Mind While Framing The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) & U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The Act. Further Order U/S 263 Is Also Passed Merely Setting Aside The Assessment To The File Of The Learned Assessing Officer To Conduct Proper Inquiry Which Is Unjustified. It Is Therefore Submitted That The Order Passed U/S 263 Should Be Cancelled.

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by issuing the notice inspite of the fact that assessment u/s. 143(3) and u/s 143(3) r.ws 147 of the Act has been completed after due examination and application of mind while framing the assessment order u/s 143(3) and u/s 143(3) rws 147

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.GANDHAR YARN PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, the summons was issued to Mr. Kamal Khaitan, Promoter of Sunteck Group, whose one of the concerns acquired the shareholding of the holding company of 5 sister concerns including the assessee, in the financial year 2011–12, and his statement was recorded. The AO vide order dated 23/12/2014 passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMAZON METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

reassessment proceedings which were duly recorded and communicated to the appellant. 8.17 Thus, there is no denying of the fact that the A.O had in his possession, credible information, which prima facie led to the formation of a belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of the appellant company. Therefore, in my considered opinion, reopening of assessment

DCIT CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ACRO EXPORTS TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

reassessment proceedings which were duly recorded and communicated to the appellant. 8.17 Thus, there is no denying of the fact that the A.O had in his possession, credible information, which prima facie led to the formation of a belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of the appellant company. Therefore, in my considered opinion, reopening of assessment

DCIE CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.PALI FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

reassessment proceedings which were duly recorded and communicated to the appellant. 8.17 Thus, there is no denying of the fact that the A.O had in his possession, credible information, which prima facie led to the formation of a belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of the appellant company. Therefore, in my considered opinion, reopening of assessment

ITO WD 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. AMPLE HOLDINGS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

147 of the Act the newly introduced sub section (viib) of section 56(2) of the Act. The relevant disposal of objection vide letter dated 17.11.2015 and the relevant Paras 3.1 to 3.5 reads as under: - “3.1 In determining whether commencement of reassessment proceeding is valid, it has to be seen whether there is prima-facie some material

INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VARAD VINAYAK REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E)

reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer requires to be cancelled, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Assessment Order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act, is bad in law and unsustainable, as the order is passed without disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant, under

VARAD VINAYAK REALTY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 (3)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer requires to be cancelled, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Assessment Order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act, is bad in law and unsustainable, as the order is passed without disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant, under

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.BELL FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 28.03.2016. The assessee complied with the notice vide letter dated 28.07.2016 requesting the AO to treat the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act in compliance to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the notice under section 143(2

DCIT 7(1)-1, MUMBAI vs. GOLDMOHUR DESIGN & APPAREL PARK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

reassessment is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Simon Carves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 held that errorless legally correct order cannot be reopened, therefore, it is settled law that without any new information and on the basis of mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As was held in CIT vs TTK Prestige

GATEGROUP INVESTMENTS SINGAPORE PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. INT TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhangateway Investments Singapore Pte Ltd. ...... Appellant 1 Maritime Square, # 12-03 Harbour Front Centre Singapore-99 253 Pan No. : Aaecg1565B

147 of the Income Tax Act r.w. section 144C(13) of the Act , 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in computing the total income of the appellant

ITO-13(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SETHIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

147 of the Act is bad in law and quashed the same for want of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. 6. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted the following evidences for the issue of / service of the notice under section 143(2) of the Act and the evidences are: Page No. 3 Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Page