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 ()

10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section 14A, Similarly, with regard

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 ()

10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section 14A, Similarly, with regard

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 ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1

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 ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1

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

1) of the Act. Subsequently, 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-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)

1) of the Act. Subsequently, 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)

1) of the Act. Subsequently, 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

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 19. Inevitable conclusion is that High Court has wrongly applied Adani Exports case (supra) which has no application to the case on the facts in view of the conceptual difference between section 143(1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 24 Navnidhi Steel & Engg

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. erred in filing appeals without complying with the regulations and with defect and filed multiple appeals with the same grounds as raised for the present appeal, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. erred in filing appeals without complying with the regulations and with defect and filed multiple appeals with the same grounds as raised for the present appeal, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. erred in filing appeals without complying with the regulations and with defect and filed multiple appeals with the same grounds as raised for the present appeal, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

10. The claim for deduction for the „Provision for bad & doubtful debts‟ allowed by way of Intimation Order, dated 28/04/2020, in the case of the Assessee constitutes an incorrect claim apparent from information in the return since the deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act exceeded the specified statutory limit (expressed as percentage of total income). Therefore

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall