LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 148. The reassessment culminated on 31.03.2024 with the disallowance of the said deduction under section 80G. disallowance of the said

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

disallowance of business expenditure.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the issuance of notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Act was not in accordance

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowing the expenditure\non Scientific Research and Development u/s 35(2AB) totaling to Rs.\n4,24,13,526/- for all the three units, on the basis of the auditor's\ncertificate which stated that these expenses are beyond the\nguidelines laid down by DSIR. These guidelines are in contradiction\nwith the provisions of section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowance. The assessee contended that reassessment was ce. The assessee contended that reassessment was ce. The assessee contended that reassessment was beyond four years, and that notice under section 148

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowance. The assessee contended that reassessment was ce. The assessee contended that reassessment was ce. The assessee contended that reassessment was beyond four years, and that notice under section 148

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowance. The assessee contended that reassessment was ce. The assessee contended that reassessment was ce. The assessee contended that reassessment was beyond four years, and that notice under section 148

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowance. The assessee contended that reassessment was ce. The assessee contended that reassessment was ce. The assessee contended that reassessment was beyond four years, and that notice under section 148

DCIT 13(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. PEBBLE BAY DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

Section 148 mechanically simply notice under Section 148 mechanically simply on the basis of information alleged to have been received from the on the basis of information alleged to have been received from the on the basis of information alleged to have been received from the Investigation Wing without application of mind. On the facts of the case, Investigation Wing

VIPENDRA RAVINDRA MANDAL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

148 of the Act requiring the assessee to file a return of income. assessee to file a return of income. In response, the assessee filed a response, the assessee filed a return declaring long return declaring long-term capital gains on the sale of the said term capital gains on the sale of the said property and claimed deduction under

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 148 was issued on 29/07/2022 for all years under consideration. 2.3 A draft assessment order was subsequently passed on 29/05/2023 for all the years under consideration by holding that, the assessee is fully managed and controlled from India and arrangement created by the assessee is to evade taxes in India. The Ld.AR thus disallowed

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 148 was issued on 29/07/2022 for all years under consideration. 2.3 A draft assessment order was subsequently passed on 29/05/2023 for all the years under consideration by holding that, the assessee is fully managed and controlled from India and arrangement created by the assessee is to evade taxes in India. The Ld.AR thus disallowed

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 148 was issued on 29/07/2022 for all years under consideration. 2.3 A draft assessment order was subsequently passed on 29/05/2023 for all the years under consideration by holding that, the assessee is fully managed and controlled from India and arrangement created by the assessee is to evade taxes in India. The Ld.AR thus disallowed

LEELABEN KANTILAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

148 of the Act. Accordingly, statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee is a proprietor of M/s Padam Prabhu Chemicals and is a reseller of chemicals and solvents. During the assessment proceedings, notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return of income on 09/08/2022, declaring a total income of INR 22,78,430. The assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at INR 29,14,408, after disallowing

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee filed its return of income on 18.08.2021, declaring income as originally returned. During the course of reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer held that depreciation under section 32 is allowable only where the asset is used

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S.GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

section 148 of the Act is also invalid. Since we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the principal arguments, we are not deciding the other, without prejudice, submissions made before us during the course of hearing. Ground No.1 is therefore allowed. 9. The issue raised in ground No.2 is general in nature and need no separate

M/S. GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSETS MANAGEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

section 148 of the Act is also invalid. Since we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the principal arguments, we are not deciding the other, without prejudice, submissions made before us during the course of hearing. Ground No.1 is therefore allowed. 9. The issue raised in ground No.2 is general in nature and need no separate