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

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

8. Further with regard to usage of 10th floor of MET campus at Bandra by private residence by Bhujbai family and no compensation was paid MET, in this regard it is submitted that we are enclosing the sample copies of requisition form for occupancy of Guest Room which shows that the said guest house was used for the purpose

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

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

8. Further with regard to usage of 10th floor of MET campus at Bandra by private residence by Bhujbai family and no compensation was paid MET, in this regard it is submitted that we are enclosing the sample copies of requisition form for occupancy of Guest Room which shows that the said guest house was used for the purpose

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

8\nthat the shares held as on 01.06.1973 were held as corpus of the trust.\nFurther, from data available on record it is seen that there are purchases/additions post 01.06.1973. No evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim of that purchases post 01.06.1973 along with their bonus accretions have been disposed off before 31.03.1993.\nTo sum up, the records

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

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

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

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

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

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

8\nthat the shares held as on 01.06.1973 were held as corpus of\nthe trust.\nFurther, from data available on record it is seen that there are\npurchases/additions post 01.06.1973. No evidence has been\nprovided to substantiate the claim of that purchases post\n01.06.1973 along with their bonus accretions have been\ndisposed off before 31.03.1993.\nTo sum up, the records

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 ()

8 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was still there. Thus, the crucial issue which requires adjudication is, whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 10. A perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under section

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

Appeal is allowed

8) as ‗assessment includes reassessment‘. Section 143, as a whole, is a provision regarding assessment. The modalities and procedure for assessment have been provided for in sub- section (1), which is different from the procedure under sub- section (2) read with sub-section (3) of the same provision. In both cases, it is a proceeding under

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

Appeal is allowed

8. Where an assessment has been reopened under section 147 in relation to a particular ground or in relation to certain specified grounds and, subsequent to the passing of the order of reassessment, the jurisdiction under section 263 is sought to be exercised with reference to issues which do not form the subject of the reopening of the assessment

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. Cit, 501, 5Th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration Is Whether The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, Can Be Subjected To Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act. For Deciding This Issue, Few Necessary Facts Are Required To Be Considered. The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Providing Information Technology (It)/Information Technology Enabled Service (Ites) To Its Group Companies As Well As Consulting Services To Its Clients. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed

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

BIRLA CARBON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

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

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

reassessment order dated 20/02/2015 but the original assessment order dated 30-12-2011, if at all. For this he referred to the query raised during original assessment proceedings by the AO i.e. DCIT(OSD) 9(1), Mumbai vide notice under section 142(1) raising the questionnaire dated 10-10-2011 and vide questionnaire No.6 he raised a specific query which

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

8 & 11 of F&U guidelines dated\n28/09/2006 and circular no:048/IRDA/De-tariff/Dec-07\ndated 18th Dec, 2007.\nb) Circular ref.no.IRDA/CIR/011/2003 dated 27-03-2003.\nc) Commission circular ref.no.011/IRDA/Brok-comm/Aug-08,\ndated 25-08-2008 and para 30 of F&U guidelines dated\n28/09/2006.\nd) Regulation 3 of IRDA (Licensing of Corporate Agent)\nRegulation, 2002 and clause 21 of IRDA circular\nref.017/IRDA/Circular/CA