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 ()

29 July 2022 i.e. after 31 March 2022, in light of the above i.e. after 31 March 2022, in light of the above-mentioned decisions, ned decisions, it is submitted that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015 it is submitted that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015 it is submitted that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 are barred

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 ()

29 July 2022 i.e. after 31 March 2022, in light of the above i.e. after 31 March 2022, in light of the above-mentioned decisions, ned decisions, it is submitted that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015 it is submitted that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015 it is submitted that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 are barred

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

29,91,434/- by denying the exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 10(35) of the Act in respect of the dividend income received from the investment in mutual funds. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the CIT(A) challenging validity of the reassessment

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)

29,91,434/- by denying the exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 10(35) of the Act in respect of the dividend income received from the investment in mutual funds. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the CIT(A) challenging validity of the reassessment

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)

29,91,434/- by denying the exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 10(35) of the Act in respect of the dividend income received from the investment in mutual funds. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the CIT(A) challenging validity of the reassessment

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

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

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 that

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 ()

29) of the Act read with Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, of the Act read with Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, of the Act read with Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It encompasses a person who in law represents the estate of a 1908. It encompasses

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)

29,235 8. Ground No.5: This ground is regarding admissibility of deduction u/s.80IB(10) to the appellant. With respect to the availability of deduction u/s.80IB, the AO has denied it that the appellant had not claimed it on the original return of income filed on 15.10.2010 but has only made a claim for the same in the computation

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

29 . The Division Bench considered a similar submission based on 13 Explanation 3 which was inserted in Section 147 by the Finance Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1/4/1989. Negativing the submission, the Division Bench held as follows: ...Where a reassessment has been made pursuant to a notice under Section 148, the order of reassessment prevails in respect

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

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

29,16,865/-. 6. Subsequently, vide order, dated 30.03.2021, passed under Section 263 of the Act, the reassessment order dated 24.12.2018 was set aside by the PCIT leading to filing of the present appeal by the Appellant. 7. When the matter was taken up for hearing the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us, at the outset, relying

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

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done- through a pro - rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.02.2022 passed under section 144 read with vide order dated 12.02.2022 passed under section 144 read with vide order dated 12.02.2022 passed under section 144 read with section 147, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee section 147, disallowed the deduction claimed by the asses section 147, disallowed the deduction claimed

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

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