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

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

section 13 of the income tax act." Further the appellant has also submitted the copy of order of Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai, Region, Mumbai dated 30.03.2022 (Page 1 to 193) 5.3 The reassessment

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

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

section 13 of the income tax act." Further the appellant has also submitted the copy of order of Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai, Region, Mumbai dated 30.03.2022 (Page 1 to 193) 5.3 The reassessment

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "147", "144B", "148", "13(1)(c)", "13(1)(d)", "13(2)(h)", "13(3)", "11", "12", "10(34)", "263" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

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.

13. Therefore, unlike in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Mills (supra) relied on by the appellant, grant of registration cannot be regarded as mere grant of a right comparable to grant of depreciation allowance which is a benefit available to all Page 23 of 47 assessee. The concept of depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration

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

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

13. Therefore, unlike in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Mills (supra) relied on by the appellant, grant of registration cannot be regarded as mere grant of a right comparable to grant of depreciation allowance which is a benefit available to all assessee. The concept of depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust

SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross\nappeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147, alleging escapement of income due to alleged violations of Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), and 13

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

13. Therefore, unlike in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Mills (supra) relied on by the appellant, grant of registration cannot be regarded as mere grant of a right comparable to grant of depreciation allowance which is a benefit available to all assessee. The concept of depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust

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

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

13. Therefore, unlike in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Mills (supra) relied on by the appellant, grant of registration cannot be regarded as mere grant of a right comparable to grant of depreciation allowance which is a benefit available to all assessee. The concept of depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust

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

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

13. Therefore, unlike in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Mills (supra) relied on by the appellant, grant of registration cannot be regarded as mere grant of a right comparable to grant of depreciation allowance which is a benefit available to all assessee. The concept of depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust

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

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

13. Therefore, unlike in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Mills (supra) relied on by the appellant, grant of registration cannot be regarded as mere grant of a right comparable to grant of depreciation allowance which is a benefit available to all assessee. The concept of depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section\n147 of the Act. In that case also the judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Ltd. (Supra)\ndealing with the interpretation of provisions contained in Section\n153A of the Act and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

section 147 of the Act, which reads as under:- “Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment.” 13

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147. In respect of those issues, limitation would commence with reference to the original order of assessment. If the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was to be in respect of issues 13

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue that arises for consideration is that whether the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act constitutes an order that can be revised by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant had placed reliance on the judgment

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\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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section\n147 of the Act. In that case also the judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Ltd. (Supra)\ndealing with the interpretation of provisions contained in Section\n153A of the Act and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal