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-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 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

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

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

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

reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act.\n2.2 The Appellant prays that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act as\nwell as consequent order be quashed.\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS\nGROUND NO. III: DENIAL OF EXEMPTION US. IO(23FB) OF\nTHE ACT:\n3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT(A) erred

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

26(1), Bombay House 24, Mumbai Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 (PAN : AAATT9835A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Shri Atul Suraiya and Shri T.P. Ostwal, CAs Revenue : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

26(1), Bombay House 24, Mumbai Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 (PAN : AAATT9835A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Shri Atul Suraiya and Shri T.P. Ostwal, CAs Revenue : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

26(1), Bombay House 24, Mumbai Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 (PAN : AAATT9835A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Shri Atul Suraiya and Shri T.P. Ostwal, CAs Revenue : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

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)

reassessment u/s 147 readwith Section 144B of the Act was not valid. Conclusion 38. In view of the above findings and discussion, the appeal filed by the department deserves to bed ismissed. Result 39. In view of the above discussion and 43 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025filed by the assessee is allowed. Hans

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

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

26-05-2017. The transaction of loan was done during regular 2017. The transaction of loan was done during regular 2017. The transaction of loan was done during regular course of business through proper banking channels. course of business through proper banking channels. course of business through proper banking channels. The Loan was taken in the earlier year

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

26. Special procedure is prescribed under Section 153A to 153D for assessment in cases of search and requisition. There cannot be a quibble with the proposition that the special provision shall prevail over the general provision. To say it differently the provisions of Section 153A to 153D have prevalence over the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Section

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

reassessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the act on 29/12/2017 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,461,230/–. 12. Assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) challenging the reopening of the assessment as well as the additions on the merits of the case, the learned