MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

263. The view taken by the Assessing Officer should not be a mere view in vacuum but a judicial view. It is well established that the Assessing Officer being a quasi-judicial authority cannot take a view, either against or in favour of the assessee/revenue, without making proper inquiries and without proper examination of the claim made by the assessee

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

263. The view taken by the Assessing Officer should not be a mere view in vacuum but a judicial view. It is well established that the Assessing Officer being a quasi-judicial authority cannot take a view, either against or in favour of the assessee/revenue, without making proper inquiries and without proper examination of the claim made by the assessee

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

263 and therefore, there was no requirement of separately specifying separately specifying or invoking of Explanation or invoking of Explanation-2 in the show cause notice proposing cause notice proposing for revision of the assessment order. revision of the assessment order. He submitted that once the main section is quoted and such section is submitted that once the main section

GLAXO SMITH KLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Glaxo Smith Kline The Pcit-8, Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gsk House, Dr. Annie Besant Vs. Mumbai-400020. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4414 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022

263 proceeding and as these write back pertains to provision which was never claimed as these write back pertains to provision which was never claimed as these write back pertains to provision which was never claimed as deduction and hence order passed under section 143(3) is not an deduction and hence order passed under section

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT -I, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

Section 263 of the Act qua the assessment year 2010-11. Quite clearly, the action of 15 M/s. Everest Industries Ltd. the Assessing Officer of allowing depreciation

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers. Though the return of income in respect of the "Lease Equalisation Fund" was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263

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

section 263 of the Act. 4.3 Depreciation on lease Assets: ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 The submission made by the assessee

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

263(2) of the Act would start running from the date of the original assessment order. In that case assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.03.1998. Subsequently, reassessment proceeding were initiated in respect of three issues viz., (i) the expenses claimed for share issue, (ii) bad and doubtful debts and, (iii) excess depreciation

METROPOLITAN STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

section 263 cannot be exercised in respect of issues which did not form a subject matter of reassessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147. Further, the Hon’ble High Court has observed that there is nothing on record of the present case to indicate that there was any other income which had come to the notice

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

Section 263 of the Act.\"\n12.5 The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of\nAgricom Foods Private Limited,Mumbai vs Principal\nCommissioner Of Income Tax dated 9.12.2024 in ITA\nNos.2709 & 2716/Mum/2024 held as below:\n“1. The Ld.PCIT, however, did not object the above said contentions of the assessee.\nHe cannot be considered as the enquiry

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 263. 12. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets of INR 1,01,09,650 12.1 The learned PCIT erred

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers. Though the return of income in respect of the "Lease Equalisation Fund" was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263

M/S. RAVI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-17, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers. Though the return of income in respect of the "Lease Equalisation Fund" was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, prior to insertion of section 35ABA under the statute. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through 22. the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) of the Act as well as order of the ld. CIT passed u/s 263

INFINITI RETAIL LTD ,MUMBAI vs. CHIEF CIT (OSD) (I/C. PR. CIT - 2 ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Depreciation on Goodwill and Redemption Premium on Non- Convertible Debentures for the captioned AY. ● Your Honour has now, sought to invoke revisionary powers under section 263

MUMBAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to section 32 and 32A of the Act. The question before the Hon'ble Court was since, the claim of deduction was allowed without due verification whether the exercise of revisional jurisdiction was justified. After considering various 21 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. decisions, the Hon'ble High Court held

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

263(2) of the Act would start running from the date of the original assessment order. In that case assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.03.1998. Subsequently, reassessment proceeding were initiated in respect of three items viz., (i) the expenses claimed for share issue, (ii) bad and doubtful debts and, (iii) excess depreciation

APURVA NATVAR PARIKH & CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

section 263, for which he was\nentitled. We, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations, do not find any infirmity in the\norder of Ld. PCIT, thus, we are not supposed to interfere with the same.\"\n7.10 The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of\nAgricom Foods Private Limited,Mumbai vs Principle\nCommissioner Of Income Tax dated

JANATA INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai M/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai

depreciation will be arising out of the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Referring to the provisions of section 263