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

reassessment\nproceedings under Section 147 of the Act and the Assessment\nOrder, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read\nwith Section 147 of Act are also quashed. Thus Ground No.1\nraised by the Assessee is allowed and Ground No.2 is dismissed\nas having been rendered infructuous.\nGround No.3 to 7:\n19. Ground No. 3 to 7 raised

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

12 of the Paper\nBook)\nBill for purchase of shares (Page No. 13 of the Paper book)\nOn the basis of above, it was submitted that the Assessee has\ndischarge the initial onus cast upon the Assessee under Section 68\nof the Act to explain nature and source of credit in the books of\naccounts of the Assessee

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)

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2.\nThe CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8.\nWe have heard the both the sides

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

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

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non \ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.” \n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

reassessment order dated 25.02.2022 as having become infructuous and, accordingly, 25.02.2022 as having become infructuous and, accordingly, 25.02.2022 as having become infructuous and, accordingly, proceeded to issue a fresh notice under section 148A(b) of the Act proceeded to issue a fresh notice under section 148A(b) of the Act proceeded to issue a fresh notice under section 148A

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business deductions and Chapter VI deductions and Chapter VI-A incentives must be respected, and A incentives must be respected, and their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. Accordingly

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

section 151 of the Act. 4.9 On perusal of the above reasons recorded, we find that there is On perusal of the above reasons recorded, we find that there is On perusal of the above reasons recorded, we find that there is no information that any income had escaped assessment. The no information that any income had escaped assessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

12 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

12 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

12 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

12 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

12 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

12 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

12 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment under Sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy. 12