“Income-tax Officer”

Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” 8 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited The principle which

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” 8 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited The principle which

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” 8 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited The principle which

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

ground no. (c), we notice that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of I Bench of ITAT in the case of Income-tax Officer, Ward tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Ahmedabad v. v. v. Parag Parag Parag Mahasukhlal Mahasukhlal Mahasukhlal Shah Shah Shah

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra ... Income-tax Act, 1922. The section 1922. The section runs thus: "34. (1) If- (a) the Income (a) the Income-tax officer has reason to believe that by reason tax officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee

Grameen Impact Investment India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National -E Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Grameen Impact Investments India National-E-Assessment Pvt. Ltd., Centre, 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. New Delhi-110 001. Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ars : Revenue By Mr. Satyapal Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/12/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grameen Impact Investments India Dy. Cit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, Aayakar 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra Mumbai-400050. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent

This claim, though initially allowed by the Venkataraman. This claim, though initially allowed by the Venkataraman. This claim, though initially allowed by the Income-tax Officer, was subsequently withdrawn by him tax Officer, was subsequently withdrawn by him tax Officer, was subsequently withdrawn by him after reassessment made after reassessment

Prerak Goel, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -19, Mumbai

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

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

acquisition of the money. bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee ... held as under: "... it is equally clear that in making the assessment under sub- section 3 of section 23 of the, Act, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must

Rekha Raghunath Erande, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2593/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Rekha Raghunath Erande बिधम/ Ward-19(3)(1) 7, Room No-6, 2Nd Floor, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Vs. Khubchand Masion, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Takwadi, Kalbadevi Road, 400007. Kalbadevi-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpe4706E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Simoni Chauhan Revenue By: Shri Vaibhav Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac. Delhi Dated 05.08.2022 For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac In Not Considering The Grounds Raised By The Assessee That She Did Not Get Proper Opportunity During The Assessment Proceedings I.E Before The Ao.

case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding arrived at by it that the Income-tax Officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee ?" In our opinion, there can only be one answer to this question which

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd. depreciation actually taken into account or granted and given effect to, i.e., debited by the Income-tax Officer against the incomings of the business in computing the taxable income of the assessee; it cannot be stretched to mean 'notionally allowed' or merely allowable ... section 43(6)(b) to mean - "limited to depreciation actually taken into account or granted and given effect to, i.e., debited by the Income-tax Officer against the incomings of the business in computing the taxable income of the assessee". (Emphasis supplied by us) 6.2.1. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision

Dboi Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd [ Formerly Dboi Global Services Addl/Jt/Dy/Assit/Cit/Ito, Ltd] Block B-4, Level-6, National E-Assessment Vs. Nirlon Knowledge Park, Centre, New Delhi-110 003 Western Express Highway, Goregoan East, Mumbai-400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2953L

Secondary Education Cess paid by the appellants for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (herein after referred to as „the AO‟) while passing the order dated 30 April 2021 (DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

interpreting the provisions of section 34 of the Act was reproduced which reads as under: "'Section 34 in terms states that once the Income-tax Officer decides to reopen the assessment, he could do so within the period prescribed by serving on the person liable to pay tax a notice ... underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during that year