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

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

3 to 6 raised by the Assessee are \nallowed.\n65. Thus, appeal preferred by the Assessee [ITA \nNo.2616/Mum/2025] is partly allowed.\nITA No.2845/Mum/2024 [Revenue’s Appeal]\n& Cross Objection No.97/Mum/2024 [in Revenue’s \nAppeal]\n66. Now we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the \n Assessment Year 2012-2013 (ITA No.2845/Mum/2024) which is \ndirected against the Order

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

Section 37(1) of the Act would not\napply. In this context, we respectfully agree with the\nobservations made by the coordinate Bench in case of\nMilestone Real Estate Fund (Supra). Pertinently, in case of\nM/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Mad.), identical issue of\ndisallowance of payment made to motor vehicle dealers\nu/s.37

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

3/- paid by\nthe assessee was to be amortized over the\nremaining period of three years. The basis behind\nthis Rule, in our humble understanding, is to value\nthe investment only at its face value which is what\nthe assessee would get at the end of the period\nand any excess paid over the face value while\nacquiring the security

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 or section 250, direct the Assessing] Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order. (2A) *** (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment beyond 3 years under section 149(1)(b), the donation entry is clearly traceable in the books and 149(1)(b), the donation entry is clearly traceable in the books and 149(1)(b), the donation entry is clearly traceable in the books and results in a claimed deduction. As such results in a claimed deduction. As such

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

section 147 of the Act without appreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in derivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee. 3. It is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has inadvertently filed two appeals for the same Assessment Year

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

3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly: extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso

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

3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly: extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso

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

section 147 of the Act without\nappreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in\nderivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee.\n\n3.\nIt is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has\ninadvertently filed two appeals for the same Assessment Year, i.e.,\n2016

DCIT-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABDULSATTAR SULEMAN GHASWALA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of learned Assessing officer for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Abdulsattar Suleman Dcit-41(4)(1) Ghaswala Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 142/48 Ghaswala Estate Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(East) Vs. S V Road Jogeshwari(W) Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400102 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg9088R Co No. 83/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No. 1658/Mum/2023 For A.Y. 2013-14) Abdulsattar Suleman Ghaswala Dcit-41(4)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 142/48 Ghaswala Estate S V Road Jogeshwari(W) Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(East) Vs. Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400102 (Cross Objector/ Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg9088R

reassessment proceedings commenced. 07. The assessee was asked to submit the details concerning the introduction of land. The assessee submitted that the above land was introduced in the partnership firm in the year 2010 at nil cost. Subsequently, in A.Y. 2013-14, the partnership firm revalued the land. It was stated that ITA No.1658/Mum/2023, CO No. 83/Mum/2023 Abdulsattar Suleman Ghaswala

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

section 147 of the Act without\nappreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in\nderivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee.\n\n3.\nIt is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has\ninadvertently filed two appeals for the same Assessment Year, i.e.,\n2016

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered during the course of the search proceedings material gathered during the course of the search proceedings material gathered during the course of the search proceedings establishes something contrary to it. If there is nothing on record to establishes something contrary to it. If there is nothing on record to establishes

INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE vs. ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA, JOGESHWARI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer-10(2)(3) V. Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 142/48, Ghaswala Estate Room No-212, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Jogeshwari(W) M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aalpg9087A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri S.M. Makhija & : Ms. Manisha Ghind Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

154 taxmann.com 17 (SC)/[2023] 295 Taxman 11 (SC) holding as under :- “9. For the purpose of deciding whether the substantial questions of law as suggested arise for consideration, it would suffice to refer to the case of the assessee who is the respondent in ITAT No. 250 of 2017, the lead case. The assessee filed their return of income

VERTEX SPINNING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 1 and 2

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vertex Spinning Limited 1011, 10Th Floor, Embassy Centre, 207, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan:Aabcv5617N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(3) 573, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

section 147, the proceedings for the reassessment can be initiated only if the A.O. has "reasons to believe" that the income chargeable to tax has escaped 7 Vertex Spinning Ltd. assessment for any assessment year. The question whether the A.O. had "reasons to believe" is not a question of limitation only, but it is a question of jurisdiction, a vital