TATA MOTORS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings were thereafter concluded vide the impugned order u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022, whereby the ld. AO assessed the assessee's loss at Rs.4985.85 crores under the normal provisions, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s 32AC of the Act amounting to Rs.14.64 crores, dropped the proposed adjustment pertaining to set-off of MAT credit against

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

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,46,747/- being 3% of Rs. 5,15,58,261/- by treating genuine purchases made by the appellant in the normal course of business, as bogus

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 36. The Supreme court In the case of ITO v/s. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 36. The Supreme court In the case of ITO v/s. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 36. The Supreme court In the case of ITO v/s. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 36. The Supreme court In the case of ITO v/s. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 36. The Supreme court In the case of ITO v/s. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 36. The Supreme court In the case of ITO v/s. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 36. The Supreme court In the case of ITO v/s. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 36. The Supreme court In the case of ITO v/s. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 36. The Supreme court In the case of ITO v/s. Nawab Mir Barkat Alt Khan Bahadur (97 ITR 239) held that having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147

SWASTIK REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

747/- which included loan of Rs.1,35,00,000/- advanced to the ITA 800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 11 assessee. The concern Seven Star Jewels is also a proprietary concern with a meager capital of Rs.3,70,874/- , sundry creditors are Rs.53,18,93,628 and sundry debtors are at Rs.38,06,99,297/- as at 31/3/2009. The concern had not taken

SWASTIK REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

747/- which included loan of Rs.1,35,00,000/- advanced to the ITA 800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 11 assessee. The concern Seven Star Jewels is also a proprietary concern with a meager capital of Rs.3,70,874/- , sundry creditors are Rs.53,18,93,628 and sundry debtors are at Rs.38,06,99,297/- as at 31/3/2009. The concern had not taken

RALF JEMS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure

RALF JEMS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure

RALF JEMS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure

RALF JEMS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure

SMT SHRISHTI GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, Ito34(3)(5) 301, Swati Building, North Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Alapd 2228 A Appellant Respondent

747 made u/s 69 of the ITAct, 1961. the ITAct, 1961. 4) The Ld CIT(A) erred in wrongly confirming sale of 4) The Ld CIT(A) erred in wrongly confirming sale of shares as shares as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. PRAYERS. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned

YES BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

147 does not provide a fresh opportunity to the Assessing Officer to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier…..The decision to reopen assessment was not based on proper reasons but obviously was a result of change of opinion.This was impermissible. The notice of reassessment was not valid and was liable to be quashed.” 5.5.In our view,the entire approach