STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

reassess \nunder section 147 or pass an order enhancing the \nassessment or reducing a refund already made or \notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee \nunder section 154, for any assessment year \nbeginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.\" \n12. The sub-section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main \nsection by the Finance

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\n==End of OCR for page 14

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

14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return\nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the\nnotice issued under Section

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)

14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return\nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the\nnotice issued under Section

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

14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return\nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the\nnotice issued under Section

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

14,98,778/-. Thereafter, \nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section \n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under \nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter \ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return \nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the \nnotice issued under Section

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

reassessment\nunder Sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act stands saved, failing\nwhich, the Revenue would be left without remedy. It is on such\nobservations the conclusions as rendered by the Supreme\nCourt and which are relevant to the case in hand, are required\nto be noted, which reads thus:\n\n\"14

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

14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed response stating that the revised return\nfiled on 24/03/2011 be treated as return filed in response to the\nnotice issued under Section

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment inconsistent with the original order of assessment in respect of matters which are not the subject-matter of proceedings under section 14

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment inconsistent with the original order of assessment in respect of matters which are not the subject-matter of proceedings under section 14

RITESH SINGH ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TREND ELECTRONICS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

14 or 33(5) of the IBC. 4.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear distinction between determination of dues and and enforcement distinction between or recovery thereof or recovery thereof. While the IBC overrides the Income

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

reassessment\nunder Sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act stands saved, failing\nwhich, the Revenue would be left without remedy. It is on such\nobservations the conclusions as rendered by the Supreme\nCourt and which are relevant to the case in hand, are required\nto be noted, which reads thus:\n\"14

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

14, the assessee was represented in the Estate of Vandravan P Shah Estate of Vandravan P Shah ITA No. 5401, 5402 & 5403/MUM/2024 name of M/s Estate name of M/s Estate of Vandravan P. Shah, through the executor through the executor having PAN No. AAAE6452D. having PAN No. AAAE6452D. 4.5 During reassessment proceedings, verification under section

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 as a supplementary assessment. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court the time limit for revision has to be reckoned with reference to the first assessment in respect of any decision prejudicial to the revenue so that extended time limit was not available for revision under section 263 of the Act. 14

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 ()

14 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 aside and not the entire assessment when reassessment proceedings are initiated. The Income Tax Officer cannot make an order of reassessment inconsistent with the original order of assessment in respect of metters which are not the subject-matter of proceedings under Section

M/S. RAVI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-17, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

reassessment proceedings. Thus, he 5 A.Y. 2010-11 submitted, there being no error in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, proceeding under section 263 of the Act would not lie. He submitted, since the learned PCIT could not have revised original assessment order passed under section

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

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

reassessment on that issue as well as in respect of other issues which 14 ITA 640/Mum/2021 subsequently come to his notice during the course of the proceedings under Section

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

14, 2010 under Section 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income of the Assessee at Rs.37,81,900/-. The AO in the assessment order dated March 31, 2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act has also made two additions of Rs.6,81,11,103/- on account of brokerage income and Rs.10