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

reassessment and recomputation. and recomputation. 153. (1) No order of assessment12 shall be made under 153. (1) No order of assessment12 shall be made under 153. (1) No order of assessment12 shall be made under section 143 or section 144

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

reassessment and recomputation. and recomputation. 153. (1) No order of assessment12 shall be made under 153. (1) No order of assessment12 shall be made under 153. (1) No order of assessment12 shall be made under section 143 or section 144

SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment cannot be examined in proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. It is well- proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment proceedings are contained in Section 153 of the Act and the same read as under: “153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment proceedings are contained in Section 153 of the Act and the same read as under: “153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

reassessment. 17.10 Proviso to section 143(3) states that no notice under clause (ii) shall be served on the assessee after expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished. The time limit for completion of assessment u/s 143 or 144 has been prescribed u/s 153(1

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

Appeal is allowed

144. Section 2(40) which defines ‗regular assessment‘, was amended by the Finance Act, 1990, with effect from April 1, 1989, which corresponds to the amendment effected in section 143(1) of the Act. In other words, the procedure for assessment has been simplified so as to dispense with a regular assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CITRON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SHRIVALLABH PITTIE INDUSTRIES LTD ,MUMBAI. vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SVP SOUTH WEST INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY, PLATINUM TEXTILE LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

CITRON INFRAPROJECT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400005 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMB, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2)., MUMBAI vs. M/S CITRON INFRAPROJECTS LTD , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

ACIT (CC)-8(2) , MUMBAI vs. HELIOS EXPORTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi