ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment for examining another aspect/facet of same issue/claim already examined during original assessment is not permissible. The headnote of said decision is reproduced herein below: 18 ITA NO.3137 & 3138/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11) ITA.No. 3177/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/s. ACC Limited “Section 10B

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment for examining another aspect/facet of same issue/claim already examined during original assessment is not permissible. The headnote of said decision is reproduced herein below: 18 ITA NO.3137 & 3138/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11) ITA.No. 3177/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/s. ACC Limited “Section 10B

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Trent House, First Floor, Large Tax Units (Ltu) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaics1404P Appellant Respondednt

10B. Further, the ld AR for the assessee to show us the questionnaire raised by the Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings, on the issues taken up by the Learned Commissioner in section

HANIL ERA TEXTILES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment proceedings. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) (A) erred in levying interest under section 34A, 234B and section 234C of the Act”. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a Public Limited Company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of yarn

NILESH S. BARDE & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,WD-24(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D.K. Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08,) Nilesh S. Barde & Co. Ito 24(3)(2) बनाम/ C-11, 7Th Floor, Pratyakshakar 320, Corporate Avenue, Wing-A, Sonawala Road, Goregaon-E Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra-E, Vs. Mumbai – 400 063. Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpb9571K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

10B of Rs. 32,12,015/- being 100 percent export oriented 5 ITA No. 2840, 2841 & 2842/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2010-11 &2011-12) M/s. Nilesh S. Barde & Co.. undertaking. This is the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. Therefore, I have

NILESH S. BARDE & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D.K. Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08,) Nilesh S. Barde & Co. Ito 24(3)(2) बनाम/ C-11, 7Th Floor, Pratyakshakar 320, Corporate Avenue, Wing-A, Sonawala Road, Goregaon-E Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra-E, Vs. Mumbai – 400 063. Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpb9571K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

10B of Rs. 32,12,015/- being 100 percent export oriented 5 ITA No. 2840, 2841 & 2842/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2010-11 &2011-12) M/s. Nilesh S. Barde & Co.. undertaking. This is the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. Therefore, I have

NILESH S. BARDE & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-24(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D.K. Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08,) Nilesh S. Barde & Co. Ito 24(3)(2) बनाम/ C-11, 7Th Floor, Pratyakshakar 320, Corporate Avenue, Wing-A, Sonawala Road, Goregaon-E Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra-E, Vs. Mumbai – 400 063. Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpb9571K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

10B of Rs. 32,12,015/- being 100 percent export oriented 5 ITA No. 2840, 2841 & 2842/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2010-11 &2011-12) M/s. Nilesh S. Barde & Co.. undertaking. This is the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. Therefore, I have

HIKAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

10B of the Act. Accordingly, Assessing Officer allocated total expenses amounting to Rs. 50,82,383 of Dombivali plant to EOU Taloja unit. 7. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 03/04/2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue following its order Hikal Limited ITA No. 5386/Mum./2012 in assessee’s own case for assessment year

MWH INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhmwh India Private Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 168, Udyog Bhavan, Circle-9(2)(3), Sonawala Road, Room No. 147B, Goregaon (East) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400 063 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca4613L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Mahita Nair

Section 10B of the Act. In the light of the above facts and findings as discussed supra we direct the A.O to allow the claim of deduction made by the assesse u/s 10A instead of Sec. 10B of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assesse is allowed. 2nd Ground: Excess levy of interest u/s 234B amounting

VALLABHNAGAR OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

10B was subject matter of appeal and NOT in its entirety. On the similar lines, judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel in the case of CIT vs Forteleza Developers 374 ITR 510 (Bom) is not applicable on the facts of the case before us. In the said case also, issue involved before the AO as well

THE AZAD NAGAR, COOPERATIVE HOUSING, SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

10B was subject matter of appeal and NOT in its entirety. On the similar lines, judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel in the case of CIT vs Forteleza Developers 374 ITR 510 (Bom) is not applicable on the facts of the case before us. In the said case also, issue involved before the AO as well

THE NAVYUG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

10B was subject matter of appeal and NOT in its entirety. On the similar lines, judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel in the case of CIT vs Forteleza Developers 374 ITR 510 (Bom) is not applicable on the facts of the case before us. In the said case also, issue involved before the AO as well

VITHALNAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

10B was subject matter of appeal and NOT in its entirety. On the similar lines, judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel in the case of CIT vs Forteleza Developers 374 ITR 510 (Bom) is not applicable on the facts of the case before us. In the said case also, issue involved before the AO as well

SUVARNA NAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

10B was subject matter of appeal and NOT in its entirety. On the similar lines, judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel in the case of CIT vs Forteleza Developers 374 ITR 510 (Bom) is not applicable on the facts of the case before us. In the said case also, issue involved before the AO as well

JAI HIND CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

10B was subject matter of appeal and NOT in its entirety. On the similar lines, judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel in the case of CIT vs Forteleza Developers 374 ITR 510 (Bom) is not applicable on the facts of the case before us. In the said case also, issue involved before the AO as well

INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (E)- I(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10B along with the return of income. The scrutiny assessment was completed in the hands of the assessee trust u/s.143(3) of the Act on 13/12/2020 assessing total income at Rs. Nil. Later the assessment for the A.Y.2008- 09 was sought to be reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act after due recording of reasons for reopening

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

Bench: Us:-

reassess' means assessments to be framed in respect of concluded assessment years where incriminating materials were found during the course of search in respect of the relevant assessment year." 3.11. We find that the provisions of section 132 of the Act relied upon by the revenue would be relevant only for the purpose of conducting the search action and initiating

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

Bench: Us:-

reassess' means assessments to be framed in respect of concluded assessment years where incriminating materials were found during the course of search in respect of the relevant assessment year." 3.11. We find that the provisions of section 132 of the Act relied upon by the revenue would be relevant only for the purpose of conducting the search action and initiating