JAY MA DURGA BUILDTECH P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

92E of l.T. Act, 1961. As a result 4 no arm's length price is determined in result of this transaction and the creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction remains unproved. In the backdrop of above facts, the undersigned has reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

SAINT GOBAIN MATERIAUX DE CONSTRUCTION SAS,FRANCE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

68-D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has held that the words "may approve" in the section, properly construed, must also include "may not approve". The word 'shall' has not been used in the section 271BA of the Act, which otherwise, would have made the imposition of penalty mandatory. Our interpretation of word 'may' finds justification

AMBICO EXPORTS AND IMPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 6822/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2013-14) It(Tp)A No.6822/Mum/2017(A.Y.2013-14)

68,66,580/- by holding that the assessee has entered into international transactions with its AEs. viz.- Ambico UK and Narayan UK. The TPO further erred in holding that the assessee has not maintained the documents as required u/s.92D of the Act and Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules. Though Ambico UK & Narayan UK were

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Am & Shrim.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Dow Chemical Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 11(1)(1) (Dcipl) As Successor Of Mumbai Rohm & Haas (India) Pvt. Room No.204, Ltd., (Rhipl) Aayakar Bhavan 1St Floor, Block B M.K.Road, 02, Godrej Business District Mumbai – 400 020 Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4467B & Aaacr2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

92E) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act)] reporting interalia, the particulars of international transactions undertaken with its Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’) during A.Y.2011-12. 3 M/s. Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd., 2.3. The assessee has imported raw materials from its AEs amounting to Rs.232,45,04,170/-. The assessee benchmarked said transaction in its transfer pricing report applying Cost Plus Method

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or 6 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or 6 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance

DISHA N . LALWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

68 was made. In such a situation, now question arises, whether reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act is valid or not. 2.5. Under the aforementioned facts, it is our bounded duty to examine the validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act. Before adverting further we are reproducing hereunder the relevant provision of section

DAM CAPITAL ADVISORS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence due date for filing return of income for it was 30.11.2012 and it has furnished return of income on 29.11.2012. 3 ITA 1991/Mum/2022 Dam Capital Advisors Ltd 3.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that out of above Rs 3,50,00,000/-, an amount

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,TELAGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account