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

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

3) With regard to the usage of 10th Floor of M.E.T. Campus at Bandra by family of the Trustee and no compensation was paid to MET. The same was used as guest house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13

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

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

3) With regard to the usage of 10th Floor of M.E.T. Campus at Bandra by family of the Trustee and no compensation was paid to MET. The same was used as guest house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13

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

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

3) With regard to the usage of 10th Floor of M.E.T. Campus at Bandra by family of the Trustee and no compensation was paid to MET. The same was used as guest house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13

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

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\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.\n\nGround No.3 to 7:\n\n19.\nGround No. 3 to 7 raised

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), 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.\n\nGround No.3 to 7:\n\n19. Ground No. 3 to 7 raised

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\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.\n\nGround No.3 to 7:\n\n19. Ground No. 3 to 7 raised

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

13 Explanation 3 which was inserted in Section 147 by the Finance Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1/4/1989. Negativing the submission, the Division Bench held as follows: ...Where a reassessment

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

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

Appeal is allowed

3) of the Act on 30.03.1998. Subsequently, reassessment proceeding were initiated in respect of three issues viz., (i) the expenses claimed for share issue, (ii) bad and doubtful debts and, (iii) excess depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers. The reassessment order was passed on 28.03.2002. Subsequently, 12 Assessment Years: 2017-18 on 29.03.2004, order under Section

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

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 ()

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. Thus, the issue relating to deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act, cannot be a subject matter of re-assessment under 10 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 section 147 of the Act, as, such reopening of assessment was for assessing a particular income, which escaped assessment. Pertinently, to justify his action of revising

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

13 Company Ltd. The said proviso clearly stipulates that where an assessment The said proviso clearly stipulates that where an assessment The said proviso clearly stipulates that where an assessment under section 143(3) or 147 has been carried out for the under section 143(3) or 147 has been carried out for the under section 143(3

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

METROPOLITAN STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

section 263 of the Act needs to be quashed. 13. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the original assessment u/s. 143(3) in this case was done on 17.1.2013 and the special audit was done on 23.09.2014. That the items upon which the ld. CIT has exercised his jurisdiction u/s. 263 were not part of the original assessment

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of Act are also quashed. Thus Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and Ground No.2 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Ground No.3 to 7: 19. Ground No. 3 to 7 raised