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 proceedings for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation, void ab initio and should are barred by limitation, void ab initio and should be quashed.” 6. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the admission of the assessee’s plea under Rule 27. admission

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 proceedings for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation, void ab initio and should are barred by limitation, void ab initio and should be quashed.” 6. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the Per contra, learned Departmental Representative opposed the admission of the assessee’s plea under Rule 27. admission

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

reassessment proceedings but deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by accepting Assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act and Section 10(35) of the Act. 5. Now the Revenue has preferred the present appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above

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 but deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by accepting Assessee‟s claim for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act and Section 10(35) of the Act. 5. Now the Revenue has preferred the present appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above

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 but deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by accepting Assessee‟s claim for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act and Section 10(35) of the Act. 5. Now the Revenue has preferred the present appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above

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 ()

III, 25(1)(1), Vs. Nariman Point, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43 Mumbai-400021. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AABTJ 0513 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/ Mr. Pinak Shah Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR : 25/06/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT

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 ()

III, 25(1)(1), Vs. Nariman Point, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43 Mumbai-400021. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AABTJ 0513 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/ Mr. Pinak Shah Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR : 25/06/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. JIVESH DEVELOPERS & PROPERTIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A”. That as the aforesaid amendment to Section 153C is not retrospective in nature and is applicable only w.e.f 01.06.2015, therefore, the case of the present assessee company would be regulated by the pre-amended provisions as were available on the statute till 30.05.2015. We find that

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

III). Section 10 deals with incomes not included in total income whereas section 11 deals with Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. We have not found anything in the language of the two provisions nor was Mr. Malhotra able to point out as to how when certain income is not to be included in computing total

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

III). Section 10 deals with incomes not included in total income whereas section 11 deals with Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. We have not found anything in the language of the two provisions nor was Mr. Malhotra able to point out as to how when certain income is not to be included in computing total

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

III). Section 10 deals with incomes not included in total income whereas section 11 deals with Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. We have not found anything in the language of the two provisions nor was Mr. Malhotra able to point out as to how when certain income is not to be included in computing total

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

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. Explanation 1. - ***** Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment on this ground is, therefore, rejected. ground is, therefore, rejected. 10. Now, the question arise whether the appeal Now, the question arise whether the appeals filed filed before us in the name of the ‘estate of deceased person estate of deceased person’ having PAN of the estate having PAN of the estate have been validly filed been validly

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBER ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

iii). viii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the deduction under chapter VIA can be complied while computing undisclosed income. The Ld CIT(A) has also erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee neither recorded in his books of account

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

10,53,225/- i.e part of the \nexpenses incurred by the Investment Department towards \nearning of the exempt income. However, the A.O rejected \nthe aforesaid claim of the assessee and worked out the \ndisallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D at Rs.13,05,70,512/-. On \nappeal, the CIT(A) relying on the orders passed by the \nTribunal and also

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

10 (other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof) J or section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or 4.2. Ld. counsel has filed detailed submissions by way of broad propositions, which are placed on record, in which, on this aspect, it has been pointed out that

ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

sections 147 to 151 of the Act had not been fulfilled in the present case rendering the reassessment proceedings to be illegal and bad in law.‖ On the other hand, the revenue has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : ―1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

sections 147 to 151 of the Act had not been fulfilled in the present case rendering the reassessment proceedings to be illegal and bad in law.‖ On the other hand, the revenue has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : ―1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case