JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

150 of the Act provides that notwithstanding the\nlimitation prescribed under section 149, notice under section 148\nmay be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment\nor reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings in the case of the Assessee. In\nthe present case the return of income was filed by the Assessee for\nthe Assessment Year 2012-2013 was processed under Section\n143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed on the\nAssessee under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, it was\nirrelevant whether the income

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

reassessment proceedings in the case of the Assessee. In\nthe present case the return of income was filed by the Assessee for\nthe Assessment Year 2012-2013 was processed under Section\n143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed on the\nAssessee under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, it was\nirrelevant whether the income

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

section 263 of the Act. 5.1 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: i. CIT v. Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. [2023] 150 CIT v. Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. [2023] 150

BHOLARAM MALVIYA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W-16(1)|(1), MUMBAI

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

150. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section-149, the notice under section-148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment

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

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

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

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

150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, if such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.] 14. As evident from the reading of the aforesaid provisions, sub-section (2) to section

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

150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, if such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.] 14. As evident from the reading of the aforesaid provisions, sub-section (2) to section

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

reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing the impugned orders dated 30 July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said provisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 2. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings\nunder section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the information\nreceived during the course of the search on another entity, therefore the AO\nwas duty bound to initiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Act\ninstead of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, in view of the non-\nobstante clause

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessment can be issued u/s 148. Now on the facts of the present case, it is seen that the evidences found during the course of search and seizure operation in the case of the assessee and M/s Evergreen 23 I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 Mr. Nilesh Bharani Enterprises, wherein assessee was a partner that they have been giving cash loans to various

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings\nunder section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the information\nreceived during the course of the search on another entity, therefore the AO\nwas duty bound to initiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Act\ninstead of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, in view of the non-\nobstante clause

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

reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing\nthe impugned orders dated 30 July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said\nprovisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the\nAssessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.\n2. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), 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

reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing\nthe impugned orders dated 30 July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said\nprovisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the\nAssessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.\n\n2. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening

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

sections 30 to 43A and,\ntherefore, unless there was a specific\nprohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be\njustified in. adding back the amount under\nrule 5(a), Therefore, even if the debit for\namortization is considered as an\nexpenditure, there is no specific prohibition\nagainst allowing such an expenditure\nunder the provisions of sections