ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3),, MUMBAI vs. FA CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 3.2 During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for various details, inter alia, party Officer called for various details, inter alia, party- -wise purchases and expenses, details of salary and wages paid to employees, and expenses, details

DCIT, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. GHANSHYAM RASIKLAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

147 of the Act for escaped assessment. After recording of satisfaction, the notice was issued and finally, the assessment was completed relied on the incriminating documents and the addition made amount to Rs.1,37,43,500/- under section 69A based on the seized MOU with Ameya group, addition was made of Rs.1,19,40,900/- on the basis

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JASVINDER KALYAN SALUJA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

69A on account of Miscellaneous advances of Rs.7,00,000/ Miscellaneous advances of Rs.7,00,000/- received during the AY 2 received during the AY 2013- 14 is confirmed. 14 is confirmed.” 5. Before us, while addressing the cross Before us, while addressing the cross-objections, objections, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenged for the assessee challenged validity

KALPANA DILIP MEHTA AS LEGAL HEIR OF DILIP DALPATLAL MEHTA,WALKESHWAR vs. ACIT 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir Of Acit 19(1), Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta, Piramal Chambers Vs. 51 Anupam Society, Manav Mandir Mumbai-400012. Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Aacpm 4426 E Appellant Respondent

147 of the Act merely on the basis of loose, uncertified and unverified sheets purportedly loose, uncertified and unverified sheets purportedly loose, uncertified and unverified sheets purportedly received from foreign government is not justif received from foreign government is not justified. Hence, ied. Hence, the reopening of assessment is bad in law and may be the reopening of assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SUNIL BHAGWATLAL DALAL, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Revenue's appeals are partly allowed and\nCross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 147 of the Act is without authority of law, which render\ninto the notice unsustainable. The appellate order is set aside on the\nissue. Therefore, we hold that the assessee failed to make out a case of\ninvalid assumption jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, ground\nno. 1 to 3 of the appeal are allowed.\n8. Ground no.4

AJAY MULTI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajay Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, C.J. House, 285 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aadca 0338 H Appellant Respondent

section 148A have not been followed and as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. The sanction u/s 151 is bad in law and as a result, the The sanction u/s

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Learned assessing officer admittedly added the said sum as well as an amount of Rs.2,65,070/- as indicating an alleged capital receipt in the nature of the benefits derived in lieu of no objection for additional construction. The assessee preferred its lower appeal wherein the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Learned assessing officer admittedly added the said sum as well as an amount of Rs.2,65,070/- as indicating an alleged capital receipt in the nature of the benefits derived in lieu of no objection for additional construction. The assessee preferred its lower appeal wherein the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUN METALLICS & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

u/s. 68 and 69A, were not the part of reasons supplied for reopening of the case and thus a mere change of opinion. 11. When we examine the aforesaid facts and reasons recorded for initiating the re-opening of assessment proceedings under section 147 & 148 of the Act suddenly, AO dropped issue flagged in the “reasons recorded” rather proceeded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUN METALLICS & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

u/s. 68 and 69A, were not the part of reasons supplied for reopening of the case and thus a mere change of opinion. 11. When we examine the aforesaid facts and reasons recorded for initiating the re-opening of assessment proceedings under section 147 & 148 of the Act suddenly, AO dropped issue flagged in the “reasons recorded” rather proceeded

NARESH AMRATLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-27(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

69A of the Act and taxing at the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the and taxing at the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the and taxing at the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 6. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, 6. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

69A on the basis of mere suspicion and surmises of the Ld. AO, and not based on facts and evidence as he failed to bring any evidence on record supporting the conclusions or controverting the evidence submitted by the appellant. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in findings and conclusions stated in para 8 of the assessment order without

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also