“scrutiny assessment”

Amsons Steel Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT Cir-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.970/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Amsons Steel Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(1) Plot No. A/16, Wagle Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Industrial Estate, Road Road, Mumbai-400020. No.8, Thane-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4716G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Bekal Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 06.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering Fair Market Value Of The Properties As On 30.05.2013 Determined By The District Valuation Officer-1, It Deptt, Mumbai-12 Vide His Report Dated 21.02.2019 As Against Stamp Duty Value Adopted By Learned Assessing Officer Even Through Your Appellant Sold At Prevailing Market Rate At Arm’S Length Principle. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Giving The Benefit Of Curative Amendment Inserted In Section 43 Ca By Finance Act, 2018 W.E.F. 01.04.2019 & Subsequently Finance Act, 2020 W.E.F.

valuation report. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of the land as Rs.1,10,00,000/-. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings reference was made to DVO for the valuation of property. The DVO vide report dated 30-12- 2013 determined the fair market value

Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Dcit-8(3)(1) Limited Mumbai 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Vs. Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

Life Insurance Company Limited vs. DCIT off to that extent from the brought forward losses had filed a nil return of income. During scrutiny assessment the income from actuarial surplus was determined at Rs.243,26,89,000/- Nothing was discussed regarding the returned income of Rs.315,27,57,788/- (which ... assessee had positive income of Rs.315,27,57,788/- and the assessing officer determined further income of Rs.243,26,89,000/- during the scrutiny assessment dated 16.03.2016. Thus, the total income determined for the A.Y. 2012-13 was Rs.558,54,46,788/- (Rs.315,27,57,788/- + Rs.243

Nikhil J. Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purpose

brief is that the return of income declaring total income of ₹1,73,30,180/- was filed on 30.11.2014. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 09.09.2015. During the course of assessment

Mr. Pankaj Sevantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-30(2)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

adjudicating the without prejudice ground of appeal raised by your Appellant in respect of Assessing Officer having erred in expanding the scope of limited scrutiny assessment proceedings initiated under CASS Selection Criteria for review of interest expenses incurred by the Appellant. Your Appellant submits that the action of learned Assessing

L & T Finance Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 L & T Finance Holdings Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(1), Brindavan Plot No. 177 Cst M.K. Road, New Marine Vs. Road, Kalina Santacruz Lines (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400098. Pan No. Aabcl 5046 R Appellant Respondent

return of income filed by the assessee was on 30.11.2014. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Income

Trafogura Global Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Trafigura Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-6 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykara Bhawan Unit No. 1101, A-Wing, Plot No. C, 66G Block, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Vs. M. G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Complex, Mumbai – 400 051

same amounted to the business expenditure of the assessee company. The ld. AR further contended that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment on the issue of deduction from total income under Chapter VIA and not for complete scrutiny. The ld. AR further contended that the issue ... entered into by the assessee with OIB for the commercial space leased out to the assessee. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment where the issue of the impugned expenditure was not the subject matter of scrutiny assessment and the A.O. passed the assessment order accepting

Elvis Zepherin Crasto, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleelvis Zepherin Crasto V. Income Tax Officer Gorai Village, Jui Pada International Taxation Gorai Essel World Road Ward – 2(1)(1) Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Asgpc6280N (Appellant) (Respondent)

declaring total income of ₹.2,20,630/-. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory / manual scrutiny assessment under e-assessment scheme 2019. The main reason for selection of scrutiny was to examine the evasion of tax in purchase of high value immovable property during the year under consideration

Janseva Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhjanseva Co-Operative Vs. Pcit-17 Credit Society Limited Room No. 120, 1 St Floor, 408, Maker Bhavan No. 3, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To 21, New Marine Lines, C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400 020 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaj7811P Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Tanzil Padvekar Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor Date Of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit-17, Mumbai, Dated 30.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing The Impugned Order Under Section 263 Of The Act By Invoking Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Jurisdiction. Hence, The Impugned Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Without Meeting Jurisdictional Requirement As Twin Mandatory Conditions Are Not Fulfilled For Invoking Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Has Erred In Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society V/S. Income Tax

mentioned in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 19.04.2021 that the case of the assesse was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under e-assessment scheme 2019 including the assessment on deduction claimed under chapter VIA of the Act. Further during the course of assessment proceedings