“Section 24(3)”

VIACOM 18, MEDIA PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

against the profits of that\nyear. A decision recorded by the ITO who computes the\nloss in the previous year under section 24(3) that the loss\ncannot be set off against the income of the subsequent\nyear is not binding on the assessee".\n\nFollowing the above decision

SOCIETY OF THE CONGREGATION OF FRANCISCAN BROTHERS ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), CIRCLE -2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Society Of The Congregation Of The Asst. Cit (E), Circle 2(1), Franciscan Brothers, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 1, Mount Poinsur, Borivali West, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400103. Pan No. Aaats 1005 K Appellant Respondent

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

have carefully gone through the submissions, both written and oral, from both the sides including the facts recorded in the SCN, orders under section 24(3), 24 (4), reference u/s replies by the defendants and the rejoinders by the Initiating Officer, the documents in the RUDs etc. On perusal ... given any justification for the passing of the provisional attachment order u/s 24(3). In this connection I must say the order under section 24(3) is purely interim in nature and once the order under section 2.4(4) is issued the significance is lost. Further, the said order

ACIT (IT) 3(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. J.P.MORGAN INDIAN INVESTMENT COMPANY MAURITIUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

case of CIT vs. Manmohan Das (deceased) (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- The ITO has under section 24 (3) to notify to the assessee the amount of loss as computed by him, If it is established in the course of assessment of the total ... against the profits of that year. A decision recorded by the ITO who computers the loss in the previous year under section 24(3) that the loss cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee. 11. Ld. DR has filed written

SOPARIWALA EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts as the assessee claimed expenses towards maintenance charges apart from claiming 30% deduction under section 24(3) of the Act towards maintenance and repairs which is not allowed as per the I.T Act. In response to the notice