R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

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

11 of the Act, since upon withdrawal of the registration or in any event cancellation of the registration under Section 12A of the Act, it would not comply with the requirements of Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal

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

11 of the Act, since upon withdrawal of the registration or in any event cancellation of the registration under Section 12A of the Act, it would not comply with the requirements of Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal

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

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

11 of the Act, since upon withdrawal of the registration or in any event cancellation of the registration under Section 12A of the Act, it would not comply with the requirements of Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal

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

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

11 of the Act, since upon withdrawal of the registration or in any event cancellation of the registration under Section 12A of the Act, it would not comply with the requirements of Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

11. 20/08/2009 Letter of Additional CIT, Range 2(2), Mumbai addressed to assessee intimating that he will be continuing the scrutiny assessment proceedings for Asst Year 2007-08 together with a detailed questionnaire calling for various details relevant for the purpose of assessment - enclosed in pages 772-775 of the paper book filed before us. 12. 19/11/2009 Letter

KESHAV AND COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

reassessment order is bad in law and should have been quashed; Computation of capital gain under section 45(4) of the Act 2 . erred in confirming the Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’) on retirement of partner from the Appellant firm to the extent of Rs.2,56,41,418/- as against no liability towards capital gain as per the Appellant; Applicability

ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. KESHAV & COMPANY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

reassessment order is bad in law and should have been quashed; Computation of capital gain under section 45(4) of the Act 2 . erred in confirming the Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’) on retirement of partner from the Appellant firm to the extent of Rs.2,56,41,418/- as against no liability towards capital gain as per the Appellant; Applicability

ASIA SOCIETY INDIA CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

4 (Delhi) wherein identical issue of interpretation of provisions contained in Section 11(3) of the Act had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition challenging the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. While quashing the reassessment

ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, M/S United Liner Agencies Of Cc-6(4), R. No.32(1), India P. Ltd. बनाम/ Ground Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Office Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road No.801, C-Wing, Behind Mumbai-400020 Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacu5182C Shri Narendra Kumar Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Y. P. Trivedi & Usha Dalal

11 M/s United Linger Agencies of India Pvt. Ltd.. export will fall under the definition of Port for the purpose of section 10(23G) and 80 IA if the concerned Port Authority has issued a certificate that the said structure form part of the Port. Copy of the said circular was submitted. Reference was also made to clause

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

4. The Provision of section 13ofI.T. Act, 1961 are as under: (Here whole of section is reproduced as it is and for the sake of brevity we have not reiterated it here). 5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

4. The Provision of section 13ofI.T. Act, 1961 are as under: (Here whole of section is reproduced as it is and for the sake of brevity we have not reiterated it here). 5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

4. The Provision of section 13ofI.T. Act, 1961 are as under: (Here whole of section is reproduced as it is and for the sake of brevity we have not reiterated it here). 5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

4. The Provision of section 13ofI.T. Act, 1961 are as under: (Here whole of section is reproduced as it is and for the sake of brevity we have not reiterated it here). 5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot

SYSCOM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

11. 2012 declaring total income at Rs. 22, 87, 54,095/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 26 February 2016 by accepting the returned income filed by the assessee. 3. Ld. PCIT perused the assessment records, according to him, the assessment order passed by assessing officer appeared to be erroneous

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment