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

section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We have already held what is erroneous. It must be an order which is not in accordance with

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

BHUVNESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX P-CIT,MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited Pcit,Mumbai-1 710/A Wing Dattani Plaza Room No. 330, 3 R D Floor, Aayakar Vs. Commercial Premises, Safed Pool, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb4386N

263 read with section 143 (3) and read with section 147 of the act on 2 – 3 – 2015 assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹ 474,760,117/– wherein the learned assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 47.35 crores on account of share application money in the books of accounts holding that the assessee has failed to prove

TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

disallowance made under section 43B in the earlier year and the AO was fully justified in allowing the claim and thus the assessment order passed by the AO is not erroneous and it is for this reason also the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263

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

section 263 of the Act was bad in law was bad in law and therefore, declare the said order and therefore, declare the said order as null and void; as null and void; 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated, facts

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

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

Disallowance under section 14A 7.1 The learned PCIT erred in setting aside the said matter to the AO for examination without appreciating that the said issue is outside the purview of section 263

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 Income-tax Act,1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. The Grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under :- 2 M/s. Everest Industries Ltd. “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed u/s 263 is grossly arbitrary and bad in law in relation to the issues

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

disallowance of expense)  Thereafter, notice under section 263 of the Act was issued seeking revision i) Software Support Charges, ii) Shared

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 ()

disallowing the expenditure of Rs.68,62,780/-. 3. After completion of assessment under section 147 of the Act, learned PCIT, in purported exercise of his powers under section 263

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

disallowed under section 14A of the Act; The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, or substitute all or any of the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal.” 9. At the time of hearing assessee submitted as under: - “Ground No. 1 to 5: Validity of proceedings under section 263

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

Appeal is allowed

263, the order dated 27-12-2007. The order dated 27-12-2007 was passed after the assessment was reopened on the ground of an escapement of income under section 147 and an order of reassessment was passed by which the claim under section 16 Assessment Years: 2017-18 72A came to be disallowed

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

disallowance of unpaid leave encashment (C) Deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viii) ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 1.2 The Pr. CIT erred in not considering the alternative plea raised by the Appellant that revision on the aforesaid issues pertaining to loss on repossessed vehicles and unpaid leave encashment is time barred by limitation under section 263

FUTURE IDEAS CO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT -9, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Ideas Co. Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Vs. Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf9519L Appellant Respondent

disallowance of interest is called for under section 14A r.w. rule 8D as the assessee had not claimed interest cost on investment in associate and subsidiary concerns since it has sufficient own funds for making the said investments. 3. Subsequently, the Principal CIT -9, Mumbai initiated revisionary proceedings under section 263

ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT,CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 263, no such disallowance has been made. In respect of MODVAT accounting and its impact on valuation of goods

ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 263, no such disallowance has been made. In respect of MODVAT accounting and its impact on valuation of goods

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

disallowable u/s.37(1) of the Act while completing the assessment.\nAs noted from the assessment order, the AO had not carried out any\nenquiry on the issue of ESOP expenses debited in the P&L account and\nto this extent the assessment order was prima facie, erroneous and\nprejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of section 263

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263. Ground No. 2: Incorrect disallowance of donation claimed u/s 80G of Ground No. 2: Incorrect disallowance of donation

FUTURE CORPORATE RESOURCES LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIMPLETON INVESTRADE PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT -9, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Corporate Resources Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 (Formerly Simpleton Investrade P. Ltd.) 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aajcs3979E Appellant Respondent

disallowance, if any, required to be made in determining the total income of the assessee under section 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Principal CIT-9, Mumbai passed under section 263