MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

15)" ], "issues": "1. Whether the assessee's activities of imparting music education and conducting concerts qualify as 'education' for exemption under Section 11 and 12, or if they fall under the 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' with profit motive. 2. Whether the reassessment

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

reassessment proceedings null and void\n5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not granting an\nopportunity of hearing through videoconference though a request\nhad been made by the appellant, and in stating that a notice had\nbeen issued for videoconferencing on 19.9.2023 but the appellant\ndid not respond to the same\nAs regards denial of exemption under section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income of of of ₹21,14,67,970/- under section 10(34); and long under section 10(34); and long-term capital gains term capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income of of of ₹21,14,67,970/- under section 10(34); and long under section 10(34); and long-term capital gains term capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income of of of ₹21,14,67,970/- under section 10(34); and long under section 10(34); and long-term capital gains term capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income of of of ₹21,14,67,970/- under section 10(34); and long under section 10(34); and long-term capital gains term capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.02.2023, passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) and section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs. 19,370/-, i.e. the returned income. Interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was directed to be charged as applicable.\n4. In the assessment order, the Assessing

GAMMON INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessments- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - Two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, or One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessments- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - Two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, or One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment

J.K.TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

reassess the income based on the amended provision of section 2(15) and section 11 of the Act. To complete

DCIT (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI vs. J.K.TRUST BOMBAY, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

reassess the income based on the amended provision of section 2(15) and section 11 of the Act. To complete

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

15)(b)(i) of the Act, no draft of the proposed order of assessment could have been passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144C(1) of the Act, much less in the name of FEIPL. Therefore, the draft assessment order passed in the present case in the name of erstwhile FEIPL is invalid in the eyes

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:] 4.4. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 92CA(3A) of the Act, we find that the time limit prescribed in Section 153 of the Act for completion of assessment is 31/12/2019 for A.Y.2016-17 considering the extended period of one year as per third proviso

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:] 4.5. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 92CA(3A) of the Act, we find that the time limit prescribed in Section 153 of the Act for completion of assessment is 31/12/2019 for A.Y.2016-17 considering the extended period of one year as per third proviso

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

15)(b)(i) of the Act, no draft of the proposed order of assessment could have been passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144C(1) of the Act, much less in the name of FEIPL. Therefore, the draft assessment order passed in the present case in the name of erstwhile FEIPL is invalid in the eyes

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

Section 263 was to be in respect of issues which formed the subject matter of the reassessment, after the original assessment was reopened, the commencement of limitation would be with reference to the order of reassessment. The present case does not fall in that category. 15

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 15

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

Appeal is allowed

15 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Income-tax exercising its revisional jurisdiction reopened the order of assessment only in relation to lease equalization fund which being not the subject of the reassessment proceedings, the period of limitation provided for under sub- section