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,\nincludes any income by way of any anonymous donation, the income-tax\npayable shall be the aggregate of-\n(i) the amount of income-tax calculated at the rate of thirty per cent. on\nthe aggregate of anonymous donation received in excess of the higher\nof the following, namely:-\n(A)five per cent. of the total donations received

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)

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 6

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 ()

6) The liability of a legal representative under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5), be limited to the extent to section (5), be limited to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the liability. which the estate is capable of meeting the liability

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

6)/(7). The impugned year that is AY 2009-10 is also prior to the aforesaid amendment brought into section 11 and therefore, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra). 6.2. Assessee thus, made out a case that the reassessment

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

6)/(7). The impugned year that is AY 2009-10 is also prior to the aforesaid amendment brought into section 11 and therefore, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra). 6.2. Assessee thus, made out a case that the reassessment

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

6)/(7). The impugned year that is AY 2009-10 is also prior to the aforesaid amendment brought into section 11 and therefore, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra). 6.2. Assessee thus, made out a case that the reassessment

THE BHATIA GENERAL HOSPITAL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

reassessment order passed was illegal and bad in law on account of the fact that: It was not based on any new tangible material, but on the basis of material already available on record It was due to a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts considered in the original assessment proceedings It amounted to review

THE BHATIA GENERAL HOSPITAL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

reassessment order passed was illegal and bad in law on account of the fact that: It was not based on any new tangible material, but on the basis of material already available on record It was due to a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts considered in the original assessment proceedings It amounted to review

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

6\ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\nGround No.1 & 2\n26. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity\nof the reassessment proceedings read as under:\n“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

6\ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\nGround No.1 & 2\n26. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity\nof the reassessment proceedings read as under:\n\"1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

reassessment order be modified by holding that your appellant\nis entitled to the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12:\n3. The addition of corpus donations of Rs 3,64,60,524 be deleted.\nThe above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one\nanother.\nYour appellant craves leave to add to, modify or delete

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

6\ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\n\nGround No.1 & 2\n\n26. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity\nof the reassessment proceedings read as under:\n\n“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6\ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\n\nGround No.1 & 2\n\n26.\nGround No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity\nof the reassessment proceedings read as under:\n\n“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

reassessment order be modified by holding that your appellant\nis entitled to the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12:\n3. The addition of corpus donations of Rs 3,64,60,524 be deleted.\nThe above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one\nanother.\nYour appellant craves leave to add to, modify or delete

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

reassessment order be modified by holding that your appellant\nis entitled to the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12:\n3. The addition of corpus donations of Rs 3,64,60,524 be deleted.\nThe above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one\nanother.\nYour appellant craves leave to add to, modify or delete

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

6 \ngrounds of appeal which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim. \nGround No.1 & 2 \n26. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Assessee challenged the validity \nof the reassessment proceedings read as under: \n“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by \ntreating the reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

reassessment order be modified by holding that your appellant\nis entitled to the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12:\n3. The addition of corpus donations of Rs 3,64,60,524 be deleted.\nThe above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one\nanother.\nYour appellant craves leave to add to, modify or delete

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

11[section 250 or] section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 12[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be,] on or after

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

11[section 250 or] section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 12[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be,] on or after