KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an ‘associated enterprises’, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an ‘associated enterprises’, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an „associated enterprises‟, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an „associated enterprises‟, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

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

b) of sub-section (2) of section 119, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] (2) No order of assessment, reassessment

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

b) of sub-section (2) of section 119, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] (2) No order of assessment, reassessment

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or ITA 1994Mum/13 & ITA 2836/Mum/14 17 Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2015.” Now, as can be seen above

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CITRON INFRAPROJECTS LTD , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

ACIT (CC)-8(2) , MUMBAI vs. HELIOS EXPORTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

ACIT (CC)-8(2) , MUMBAI vs. HELIOS EXPORTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

SVP SOUTH WEST INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY, PLATINUM TEXTILE LTD.),MUMBAI-400005 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2)., MUMBAI vs. M/S CITRON INFRAPROJECTS LTD , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMB, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

CITRON INFRAPROJECT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400005 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI-400020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CITRON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

SVP SOUTH WEST INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY, PLATINUM TEXTILE LTD.),MUMBAI-400005 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable

SHRIVALLABH PITTIE INDUSTRIES LTD ,MUMBAI. vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable