State Bank of India v. ACIT

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

…ITR 763 dated 6 February 2024 (Bombay HC)] (enclosed at page nos.409 to 413 of the legal paperbook) Department's SLP dismissed by SC in 482 ITR 286 dated 10 February 2025 (enclosed at page nos.414 to 415 of the legal paperbook). • State Bank of India ((2019) 418 ITR 485 dated 17 January 2019 (Bombay HC)] (enclosed at page nos.416 to 423 of the legal paperbook) Department's SLP dismissed by SC in 447 ITR 368 dated 4 August 2022 (enclosed at page nos.424 to 425 of the legal paperbook) • Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd [(2025) 176 taxmann.com 103 dated 3 July 2025 (Bombay HC)] (enclosed at page nos.426 to 443 of…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TMF HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

…ment's reliance on the decision in case of Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. (236 ITR 34 (SC)] and Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [291 ITR 500 (SC)) has been distinguished and the proceedings being quashed on account of change of opinion • State Bank of India [418 ITR 485 ( Bombay HC)]: [refer page nos. 593 to 600 of legal paperbook] - Department's SLP dismissed in 447 ITR 368 [refer page nos. 601 to 602 of legal paperbook]. • Asianet Star Communications (P.) Ltd. [422 ITR 47 (Madras HC)] [refer page nos. 603 to 620 of legal paperbook] • Castrol India Ltd. [(2024) 299 Taxman 71 dated 05 March 2024 (Bombay HC)] […

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M PALLONJI ENERPRISES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-1(2)(3), M/s M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5th floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAFCM 3357 A Appellant Respondent CO No. 204/MUM/2018 (ITA No. 1907/MUM/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITO-1(2)(3), 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, R. No. 527, 5th floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400020. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-40002…

SAI SHIPPING COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER/NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

…beyond this.” 15. We have noticed earlier that the assessing officer has formed belief about escapement of income on “verification of records”. This aspect has been commented by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. ACIT (2019)(418 ITR 485)(Bom) as under:- “7. In the context of these three grounds sought to be pressed in service by the Assessing Officer, the reasons recorded eloquently establish that the Assessing Officer was proceeding on the material already on record. Apart from there being no allegations even in the reasons recorded that there was any failure on the part of th…

NAROTAM SEKHSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17 (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground 1 along with the additional ground challenging the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri M. Balaganesh ()

…ttention to the following decisions:- 1. Akshar Anshul Construction LLP vs ACIT (104 taxmann.com 94)(Bom) 2. Amruta Quarry Works vs ITO – ITA No.270/Ahd/2015(Ahd) 3. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd vs ACIT ( 25 taxmann.com 241)(Bom) 4. State Bank of India vs ACIT (418 ITR 485)(Bom) 5. Pr.CIT vs State Bank of Saurashtra (100 taxmann.com 437)(Bom) 6. CIT vs Shakardas B Pahajani 93 taxmann.com 248)(Bom) 7. American Express International Banking Corpn vs CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom) 7. CIT vs CitiBank N.A. (Civil Appeal No.1549 of 2006)(SC) 8. JCIT vs Dena Bank (20 taxmann.com 278)(Mum) 9. State Bank of India vs DCIT (44 taxman…

JAGDISH U. THACKERSAY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIRCLE) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jagdish U. Thackersey, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 13, Sir Vithaldas Chambers Vs. (Circle) 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Mumbai Samachar Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400023. PAN No. AAFPT4701L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, AR Revenue by : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR Date of Hearing : 29/12/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 11/01/2021 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relev…