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 ()

reassessment was beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer rather than the been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer rather than the been issued by the Faceless

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 ()

reassessment was beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer rather than the been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer rather than the been issued by the Faceless

ACIT-231, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 14/12/2018, under Section 148 of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notices, Assessee filed return of income on 15/03/2018 declaring total income of INR 10

ACIT 23-1, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 14/12/2018, under Section 148 of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notices, Assessee filed return of income on 15/03/2018 declaring total income of INR 10

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 147 of the Act by the Ld. AO, without appreciating that the reopening is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void reopening is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. initio. The Appellant prays that reassessment proceeding be held as without he Appellant prays that reassessment proceeding be held as without he Appellant prays that reassessment proceeding

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 147 of the Act by the Ld. AO, without appreciating that the reopening is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void reopening is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. initio. The Appellant prays that reassessment proceeding be held as without he Appellant prays that reassessment proceeding be held as without he Appellant prays that reassessment proceeding

ACIT, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Section 10(35) of the Act.\nThe Assessee was provided reasons for reopening assessment\nagainst which objections were filed by the Assessee. Vide Order,\ndated 25/09/2018, the Assessing Officer disposed off the\naforesaid objections and proceeded with the reassessment

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 10 of\nthe Act. After due verification only, the assessment was completed.\nFrom the present reassessment proceedings, we observe

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

10(38)", "Section 68", "Section 153A", "Section 153C", "Section 148", "Section 132", "Section 132A", "Section 131" ], "issues": "1. Whether the reassessment

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 10(35) of Rs. 10,55,57,797/- towards dividend income. According to the ld. AO the said income should have been offered as income for object of the trust. Thus, he recorded that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of the AY 2009-10 relevant material facts

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BANDRA MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 10(35) of Rs. 10,55,57,797/- towards dividend income. According to the ld. AO the said income should have been offered as income for object of the trust. Thus, he recorded that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of the AY 2009-10 relevant material facts

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 10(35) of Rs. 10,55,57,797/- towards dividend income. According to the ld. AO the said income should have been offered as income for object of the trust. Thus, he recorded that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of the AY 2009-10 relevant material facts

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were valid, or should they have been initiated under Section 153C? 2. Whether the addition of sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was justified, and if the claim of exemption under Section 10

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, the alternate claim of exemption under section 10(21) is made by the assessee

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non- \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE vs. M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

10) on the income embedded on 'on money' receipt without appreciating the fact that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made during reassessment / assessment under section

M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE

10) on the income embedded on 'on money' receipt without appreciating the fact that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made during reassessment / assessment under section

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 37\n==End of OCR for page 10==\nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car\ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material,\nthe Assessing Officer initiate reassessment