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, 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. 6. During

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

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

ACIT CEN CIR-I, RG0-2, MUMBAI vs. REHAB HSG. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year.‖ 8. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that in a case where search and seizure operation has been conducted under section 132 of the Act or books

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

10 vide order dated 30.12.2011 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax 2 Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The reassessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 20.02.2015. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 92 days and registry has pointed

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

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

20,566/- 75.6% 10 Dividend Income exempt under sub-section (34) 7,88,64,220/- 24.44% of section 10 Interest income on unit scheme 1964 exempt 16,32,987/- 0.50% under sub-section (35) of section 10 Total 32,27,17,773/- 100% 3.14. Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Sec. 115JB

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

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)

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated.” ii. 276 ITR 165 Gujarat S, R. Koshti V/s. CIT As held in this case, if the assessee is in a position to show that he has been over assessed regard less of whether over assessment is a result of assessee’s own mistake or otherwise, the commissioner has power to correct such an assessment

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

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

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

JAMSETJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

10(34) and there can be a potential tax implication under section 115 TD as well. It is then submitted that failure of a statutory authority to discharge its statutory duty cannot prejudice the assessee. Reliance is placed on the judicial precedents in the cases of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs State of Bihar

NAVAJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

10(34) and there can be a potential tax implication under section 115 TD as well. It is then Page 20 of 47 submitted that failure of a statutory authority to discharge its statutory duty cannot prejudice the assessee. Reliance is placed on the judicial precedents in the cases of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs State of Bihar