SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

11(5) or Section 13\nof the IT Act, in finalizing the petitioner's assessment for the assessment\nyear in question. On such a backdrop, on a plain reading of the reasons for\nreopening as furnished to the petitioner, it is clear that the Assessing\nOfficer has sought to reopen the assessment on a change of opinion\nin the application

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

11,70,825/-\n2015-16\n153A r.w.s. 143(3)\n10,230/-\n10,230/-\n2016-17\n153A r.w.s. 143(3)\nNIL\nNIL\n2017-18\n153A r.w.s. 143(3)\n14,090/-\n14,70,99,938/-\n2018-19\n143(3)\nNIL\nNIL\nThe draft assessment orders made in these are hereby approved u/s. 153D\nof the I.T. Act, 1961. Subject to the following

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

2) is mandatory and in the absence of such service, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to make an inquiry on the return filed in compliance with the notice issued under Section 148.” 11. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Silver Line [383 ITR 455] held that the failure of the Assessing Officer in reassessment

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

2) is mandatory and in the absence of such service, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to make an inquiry on the return filed in compliance with the notice issued under Section 148.” 11. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Silver Line [383 ITR 455] held that the failure of the Assessing Officer in reassessment

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

2) is mandatory and in the absence of such service, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to make an inquiry on the return filed in compliance with the notice issued under Section 148.” 11. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Silver Line [383 ITR 455] held that the failure of the Assessing Officer in reassessment

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

2) is mandatory and in the absence of such service, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to make an inquiry on the return filed in compliance with the notice issued under Section 148.” 11. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Silver Line [383 ITR 455] held that the failure of the Assessing Officer in reassessment

ASGAR MOHAMMED HUSSAIN GHADIALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143(2) of the Act either at any time before the AO or prior to, or during the reassessment proceedings, the Assessee was precluded from raising such an objection in the subsequent stages of the proceedings. 11

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2 the Supreme Court held: “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2 the Supreme Court held: “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2 the Supreme Court held: “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power

ITO-26(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2 the Supreme Court held: “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2 the Supreme Court held: “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2 the Supreme Court held: “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

2 the Supreme Court held: “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power

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.

2. clear purpose and intent of the provisions relating to registration of Trust and cancellation thereof as explained above, do not envisage registration as a simplicitor benefit which can be unilaterally surrendered. Hence, such an interpretation is not only not borne out by the plain language of the statute but would be contrary to the meaning, purpose and intent

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

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

2. clear purpose and intent of the provisions relating to registration of Trust and cancellation thereof as explained above, do not envisage registration as a simplicitor benefit which can be unilaterally surrendered. Hence, such an interpretation is not only not borne out by the plain language of the statute but would be contrary to the meaning, purpose and intent

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

2. clear purpose and intent of the provisions relating to registration of Trust and cancellation thereof as explained above, do not envisage registration as a simplicitor benefit which can be unilaterally surrendered. Hence, such an Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 19 of 35 interpretation is not only not borne out by the plain language of the statute but would

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

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

2. clear purpose and intent of the provisions relating to registration of Trust and cancellation thereof as explained above, do not envisage registration as a simplicitor benefit which can be unilaterally surrendered. Hence, such an interpretation is not only not borne out by the plain language of the statute but would be contrary to the meaning, purpose and intent

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

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

2. clear purpose and intent of the provisions relating to registration of Trust and cancellation thereof as explained above, do not envisage registration as a simplicitor benefit which can be unilaterally surrendered. Hence, such an interpretation is not only not borne out by the plain language of the statute but would be contrary to the meaning, purpose and intent