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

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

ASST CIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. NEETISH R. DOSHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Neetish R Doshi Income Tax-4(3)(2), 17, Gr. Floor, Sumernagar Room No.649 Building, No.01, Near Kora Aayakar Bhavan Kendra Kendra Flyover, M.K.Road, New Marine Lines S.V.Road, Borivali West Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan/Gir No. Appellant) .. Respondent)

3) read with Section 144A of the Act was submitted wherein the material facts regarding the agricultural income was shown and in respect whereof, the certificate of the Tahsildar who was also the Revenue Gazetted Officer, was filed and the same was accepted by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to whom a reference under Section 144A

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

reassessments finalized for finalized for the the the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 1020, 1019, 1550 & 1548/M/2018 & 1970/M/2022 Income Income-tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

reassessments finalized for finalized for the the the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 1020, 1019, 1550 & 1548/M/2018 & 1970/M/2022 Income Income-tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly

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

3)\nread with Section 147 of the Act.\n\n8.\nThe Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA\nNo.583/Mum/2024 [Assessment Year 2013-2014] :\n\n\"1.\nThe re-opening of the assessment of the appellant by\nthe issue of notice under section 148 without satisfying\nthe jurisdictional conditions precedent to assuming\njurisdiction under section 147 is without jurisdiction

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

131( Mumbai), case where amount on which tax was deducted at case where amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all source is not at all chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

131( Mumbai), case where amount on which tax was deducted at case where amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all source is not at all chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will

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

131 or section 133A, as the case may be, on or before the 31st day of March of a financial year, in consequence of,- (a) a search under section 132 which is initiated; or (b) a search under section 132 for which the last of authorisations is executed; or (c) a requisition made under section 132A, after the 15th

PRAKASH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(2), MUMBAI

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Appellant that provisions of Section 153(2A) of the Act would be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9.5. In view of the above, we hold that the order, dated 28/12/2016, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read

BHUVNESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX P-CIT,MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited Pcit,Mumbai-1 710/A Wing Dattani Plaza Room No. 330, 3 R D Floor, Aayakar Vs. Commercial Premises, Safed Pool, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb4386N

131 of the act of all the parties, notices under section 133 (6) were also issued to the investor companies. Summons were responded to by the investors and notices under section 133 (6) were also responded to favourably. The AO takes a view that there is no addition under section 68 could be made in the hence of the assessee

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment unless some incriminating material concerning those issues were found during the course of search. Otherwise, in the concluded assessments which have been reopened u/s 153A, the assessing officer should restrict himself with the additions arising out of the incriminating materials found during the course of search." 20.21 In the case of Viraj Forgings Ltd. vs. DOT [ITA No. 1948/M/2008

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment are being adjudicated. 7. In the additional ground (listed as ground No. 9 ), the assessee has challenged validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 8. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. For adjudication of the ground, it is relevant to reproduce

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment are being adjudicated. 7. In the additional ground (listed as ground No. 9 ), the assessee has challenged validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 8. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. For adjudication of the ground, it is relevant to reproduce

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons

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

131 or section 133A, as the case may be, on or before the 31st\nday of March of a financial year, in consequence of,-\n(a) a search under section 132 which is initiated; or\n(b) a search under section 132 for which the last of authorisations is executed;\nor\n(c) a requisition made under section 132A,\nafter

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

3)\nread with Section 147 of the Act.\n8.\nThe Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA\nNo.583/Mum/2024 [Assessment Year 2013-2014]:\n\"1.\nThe re-opening of the assessment of the appellant by\nthe issue of notice under section 148 without satisfying\nthe jurisdictional conditions precedent to assuming\njurisdiction under section 147 is without jurisdiction and\nbad