THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassess such income. The A.O. clearly had reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and the same can be reopened under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that in the instant case since the assessment has been reopened within four years from the end of the assessment year, the proviso to section

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassessments can be framed u/s 147/148 of the Act if no new tangible material has come to the notice of the A.O. as there is no reason to believe based upon the new tangible material coming into the possession of the A.O. which could lead to forming an opinion that an income has escaped assessment, thus, it would warrant that

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 1324 after the 31" day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 1324 after the 31" day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

M/S. LARSEN & TOURBRO LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) & 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhlarsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, N M Marg Income Tax, Circle- (5)(4), Ballard Estate, Fort Mumbai (Erstwhile Mumbai- 400001 Income Tax Officer- 2(2) Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021

reassessment proceedings require to be quashed. c. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act in view of the fact that the proceedings were initiated after four years from the end of the Assessment Year under consideration, and there was no failure

AQUA TECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)-3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

147 of the Act dated 31.03.2023, which was re-opened for a specific limited issue unrelated to the claim of said deduction u/s 801A(4) already examined by the Assessing Officer in previous order dated 17.05.2021. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, erred

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer of issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act is without the authority of law and cannot be sustained. 3.8. It is also pertinent to note that against this order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer of issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act is without the authority of law and cannot be sustained. 3.8. It is also pertinent to note that against this order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue\nare dismissed

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section\n153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under\nsection 132 or books of account, other documents or any\nassets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31 day\nof May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall-\n(a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of an equivalent amount. Second Issue In the second issue raised vide Ground No.2, 2.1 and 2.2 of Form No.36, the Assessee claims that the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been invoked beyond the stipulated time prescribed u/s 263(2) of the Income

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 12/06/2003 for the reason that while completing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the deduction u/s. 80 IB of Rs. 3,21,82,320/- has not been reduced from Profits of business while computing deduction u/s 80 HHC. 3. In the reassessment proceedings, the AO held that the deduction

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 12/06/2003 for the reason that while completing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the deduction u/s. 80 IB of Rs. 3,21,82,320/- has not been reduced from Profits of business while computing deduction u/s 80 HHC. 3. In the reassessment proceedings, the AO held that the deduction

AROMA ORGANICS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3036/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aroma Organics Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of 106-110, Krishna Bhavan Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Annex, Govandi, Room No. 432, Aayakar Vs. Mumbai-400 088 Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaca5370J अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shekar Gupta, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2019

u/s 801A has not been considered by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment, the re-opening of assessment cannot be said to be on account of change of opinion. The appellant's objection to the re-opening of assessment on this issue is dismissed.” Aggrieved now, assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL - 1, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

801A(4) of the Act. 6. It is further pertinent to mention here that infrastructure facility, within the meaning of section 80IA of the IT Act, means the facility developed, operated and maintained for the purpose of public utility. However, in the assessee case, the facility of jetty is developed or maintained for the purpose of captive use only

DCIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BRENNTAG INGREDIENTS (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Brenntag Ingredients Income Tax – 9(2)(1), (I) Pvt. Ltd., Room No.665A, 6Th Floor 301, Akruti Centre Point 3Rd Floor, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020 Central Road, Andheri(E) Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No.Aabce5086G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

u/s 143(3) after the expiry of four years unless the AO is able to demonstrate that there was failure on the part of the assessee in disclosure of material facts. In this regard, we feel it appropriate to reproduce hereunder t/ie first proviso to section 147 of the Act:- .. ... "provided that where an assessment under sub-section

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the\nliability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning\non or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\nRule 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of\nthe assessee of a previous