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

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

sections": [ "147", "144B", "148", "139", "142(1)", "13(3)", "13(1)(c)", "13(1)(d)", "13(2)(h)", "11", "12", "10(34)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced by the Assessee. The book entries and the return of income before the AO are enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the amount in question was not claimed

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer to proceed under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.) 13

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

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

reassess the income after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that the scope of the aforesaid verification/inquiry shall be restricted to the provision contained in Section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Learned PCIT stands clarified/modified as aforesaid and scope of inquiry/verification in respect of deduction claimed for „Provision

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

13-15\nfor reasons\n3. 19th January\n2022\nNotice u/s 142(1) of the Act\n16-18\n4. 10th February\n2022\nNotice u/s143(2)\nr.w.s 147 providing 19-28\nreasons for reopening\n5. 16th February\n2022\nNotice u/s 142(1) of the Act\n29-30\n6. 1st March 2022\nObjection filed\nreopening for\nreassessment\nwith respect

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

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

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

13-15\nfor reasons\n3.\n19th January\n2022\nNotice u/s 142(1) of the Act\n16-18\n4.\n10th February\n2022\nNotice u/s143(2)\nr.w.s 147 providing 19-28\nreasons for reopening\n5.\n16th February\n2022\nNotice u/s 142(1) of the Act\n29-30\n6.\n1st March 2022\nObjection filed\nreopening for\nreassessment\nwith\nrespect

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

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