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

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

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. 6. During

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. 6. During

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

reassessment proceedings as\nwell as additions made by the Assessing officer on merits. Vide\nOrder, dated 01/12/2013, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal\npreferred by the Assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of\nreassessment proceedings but deleted the additions made by the\nAssessing Officer by accepting Assessee's claim for exemption\nunder Section 10(23FB

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

20(1)(1)]\nMumbai - 400030 Room No. 124, 1st Floor\nPAN: AACTA4226E Piramal Chambers, Lal baugh\nMumbai - 400013\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented by : Shri Yogesh Thar,\nMs. Sukanya Jayaram &\nShri Urvish Shah\nDepartment Represented by : Shri Ajay Chandra\nDate of Conclusion of Hearing : 29.01.2024\nDate of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024\nORDER\nPER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)\n1. This appeal

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

20 above on which reliance was placed on behalf of the\nRevenue were made in the context of Section 153A of the Act. As\nnoted herein above the scheme of Section 153A of the Act differs\nfrom the scheme of Section 153C of the Act. The provisions\ncontained in Section 153A of the Act get triggered on search having\nbeen

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

20 above on which reliance was placed on behalf of the\nRevenue were made in the context of Section 153A of the Act. As\nnoted herein above the scheme of Section 153A of the Act differs\nfrom the scheme of Section 153C of the Act. The provisions\ncontained in Section 153A of the Act get triggered on search having\nbeen

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. From the perusal of records all the details pertaining to the alternate claim of the assessee have been submitted and are part of the records. Therefore there is merit in the claim of the ld AR that

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

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

reassessment / assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing additional claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) without appreciating that as per section 80A(5) of the Act the benefit of enhanced deduction u/s 80IB(10

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

reassessment / assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing additional claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) without appreciating that as per section 80A(5) of the Act the benefit of enhanced deduction u/s 80IB(10

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

20,000 11,76,822 1,178 8 13-07-15 57.60 10,000 5,75,424 576 9 16-07-15 56.20 30,000 16,84,314 1686 160,000 91,80,309 9,191 32 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. 7. In order to prove the said contention the assessee had already placed on record the copy

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 proceedings\nconcluding as under:\n“For the A.Y.2010-11, the nature of expenses in the form of\npayments made to motor car dealers needs

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

20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere\nstate that there was failure on the part of the assessee to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the\nassessment of that assessment year. It is needless to\nmention that the reasons are required to be read as they\nwere recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere\nstate that there was failure on the part of the assessee to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the\nassessment of that assessment year. It is needless to\nmention that the reasons are required to be read as they\nwere recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere\nstate that there was failure on the part of the assessee to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the\nassessment of that assessment year. It is needless to\nmention that the reasons are required to be read as they\nwere recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution

DCIT-CC 5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDIAFIRST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-Cc-5(3), Indiafirst Life Insurance Company Room No. 426, Kautilya Bhavan, Ltd., Vs. Bkc Road, 12Th & 13Th Floor, Building No. 4, Mumbai-400051. Nesco It Park Western Express Highway Goregaon E, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aadcb 6215 G Appellant Respondent

Reassessment Order dated December 20, 2016 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Order dated December 20, 2016 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Order dated December 20, 2016 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 14(2)(1), Mumbai {'Le tax, Circle 14(2)(1), Mumbai {'Learned AO'} under section arned AO'} under section 143(3) read with section