RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

u/s. 144A of the Act. The appellant submits that the directions of the Add!. CIT in this regard are reproduced hereunder:- "1. It is seen that assessee has claimed Depreciation as per I. T. Act at Rs. 8, 65, 52, 484/- as against Depreciation as per Companies Act of just Rs.18,17,815/-. While perusing the Depreciation Schedule

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

revision u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT is not empowered to direct the AO to frame an assessment in a particular manner or to give specific directions as regards the taxability of certain items. Ref: Shri Kirit Vrajlal Babaria vs. DCIT – ITA No. 2939/M/09 ACIT vs. Manas Salt Iodosation Industries P. Ltd. – (2015) 38 ITR (Trib) (Gauhati) Development Construction

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

depreciation claimed by revaluation of assets and creating goodwill which did not exist in any of the Companies involved in the scheme of amalgamation. You are hence required to show cause as to why the assessment order passed on 26/10/2017 u/s 143(3) rws 144C(13) of the IT Act for AY 2013 14 should not be revised u/s 263

J.N INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

depreciation of Rs. 8,35,66,916/- on the “Wind Energy Converters” while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, the same had thus rendered the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therefore, invoked his revision jurisdiction u/s 263

WIND WORLD INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

depreciation of Rs. 8,35,66,916/- on the “Wind Energy Converters” while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, the same had thus rendered the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therefore, invoked his revision jurisdiction u/s 263

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

depreciation of Rs. 8,35,66,916/- on the “Wind Energy Converters” while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, the same had thus rendered the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therefore, invoked his revision jurisdiction u/s 263

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

depreciation of Rs. 8,35,66,916/- on the “Wind Energy Converters” while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, the same had thus rendered the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therefore, invoked his revision jurisdiction u/s 263

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

depreciation of Rs. 4,19,245/- should not be disallowed as per the provisions of section 11(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Please note that in case of non-compliance within stipulated time, penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s

THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

depreciation of Rs. 4,19,245/- should not be disallowed as per the provisions of section 11(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Please note that in case of non-compliance within stipulated time, penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

revised its return on 29 March 2013 at ₹5450,09,08,140/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. Draft assessment order was passed. As assessee did not want to approach Dispute Resolution Panel, final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act was passed on 25th March, 2015 determining

SANDEEP P. PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -16, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation ,travelling expenses etc. are allowable as deductible expenses from remuneration received from the firm. The Principal CIT failed to appreciate that revision 5. Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. jurisdiction u/s 263

SURENDRA L. HIRANANDANI,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals for A

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhan

263 of the Act. 18 ITA No3226-3232.M.17 A.Y.2008-09 to 2014-15 19. Further it is observed that in the case of Jitendra Mehta v. CIT in ITA No. 1872/Mum/2015 dated 24.06.2015 also, the CIT sought to revise the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue

MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

revise the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dt. 07.06.2021, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Our submission During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) the learned Assessing Officer has required details of large share premium received by the assessee

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

263 of the Act, proposing to revise the assessment order dated 27.12.2016 passed for the Asst Year 2014-15 u/s. 143(3) of the Act by treating the order of the ld AO as erroneous in as much as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this notice, the ld. PCIT stated that in the subject assessment

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

depreciation on goodwill was claimed by the assessee and actually allowed to the assessee only from AY 2012-13 14 M/s. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd. onwards. Admittedly, the assessment for the AY 2012-13 was neither subjected to reopening u/s 147 of the Act by the ld. AO nor revision u/s 263

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

u/s 263 of the 1961 Act. In our\nconsidered view, the ld. Pr. CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263 of\nthe Act, which we uphold/sustain..\"\n12.4 The Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner\nof Income Tax, Delhi-7 vs M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd.\nin ITA 247/2023(Del-HC)on 19 March

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation on value of investments and re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), in respect of provisions of bad debts, as well as bad debt written off. 4. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT-2, Mumbai has issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to explain

HIMMATLAL KANHAIYALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-41, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

revised is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, since the cash deposits corresponding to sales of goods had been credited to audited P & L account and income thereon had been offered to tax. As the order passed u/s 143(3) is not erroneous in so far not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and since both limbs