BHASKAR ARVIND KUMAR HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

revision or rectification proceedings against finalized assessments/reassessments would not abate. Therefore, the argument of the revenue, that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the assessments/reassessments finalized for the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly on annulment of assessment made under Section 153A(1) what stands revived

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

revising the approval of JCIT.” M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., 9.9. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered by us hereinabove wherein 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

revising the approval of JCIT.” M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., 9.9. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered by us hereinabove wherein 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

revising the approval of JCIT.” M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., 9.9. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered by us hereinabove wherein 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

revising the approval of JCIT.” M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., 9.9. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered by us hereinabove wherein 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

revising the approval of JCIT.” M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., 9.9. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered by us hereinabove wherein 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

revising the approval of JCIT.” M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., 9.9. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered by us hereinabove wherein 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

revising the approval of JCIT.” M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., 9.9. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered by us hereinabove wherein 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

revising the approval of JCIT.” M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., 9.9. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered by us hereinabove wherein 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,TELAGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

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

revising the approval of JCIT.” M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., 9.9. We find that this is purely a legal issue raised by the assessee and it does not require examination of any fresh facts. Hence, the said additional ground is admitted herein. But in view of the decision rendered by us hereinabove wherein 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT

VALIANT GLASS WORKS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargvaliant Glass Works Pvt. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O. Shankarlal Jain & Income Tax, Associates, 12, Engineer Central Circle-38, Mumbai Building, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai 400 002 Pan:Aaacv 1224 E Appellant .. Respondent

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB and hence, there was no reason for the assessee to agitate the validity of the abated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. However, since the learned CIT had directed while passing revision order u/s 263

RED MONSTER MOBILE PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400021 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances to the total income of assessee. Subsequently, Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act observed certain errors in the order of AO, therefore, he was of the view that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on account of no proper enquiry before completing assessment as discussed below

M/S.SRL DIAGNOSTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-7, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri R. L. Negi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

263 of the Act. 24. Ld.AR submitted that Ld. PCIT directing consideration of disallowance of expenditure u/s 43 B of the Act is beyond the SCN and hence illegal (Ground of Appeal No 5) 24.1. He submitted that the PCIT, in his impugned order has set aside the assessment order to examine the disallowance u/s

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI CITY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

disallowance u/s. 79 of the Act of business nce u/s. 79 of the Act of business losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI CITY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

disallowance u/s. 79 of the Act of business nce u/s. 79 of the Act of business losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

disallowance u/s. 79 of the Act of business nce u/s. 79 of the Act of business losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI CITY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

disallowance u/s. 79 of the Act of business nce u/s. 79 of the Act of business losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

disallowance u/s. 79 of the Act of business nce u/s. 79 of the Act of business losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from losses (and their set off if and as applicable) brought forward from

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

revision by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act . The ld. Counsel submitted that the A.O. has framed an assessment order dated 24.02.2014 u/s 143(3) of the Act read with Section 263 of the Act, in pursuance to the order dated 06.02.2013 passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act, whereby disallowance