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)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

164(2) where whole or any part of relevant income of the trust is not exempt under s. 11 or s. 12 because of contravention of s. 13(1)(d), tax is chargeable on such income or part thereof at the maximum marginal rate—Only the non-exempt portion of income would fall

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

164(2) where whole or any part of relevant income of the trust is not exempt under s. 11 or s. 12 because of contravention of s. 13(1)(d), tax is chargeable on such income or part thereof at the maximum marginal rate—Only the non-exempt portion of income would fall

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

164(2) where whole or any part of relevant income of the trust is not exempt under s. 11 or s. 12 because of contravention of s. 13(1)(d), tax is chargeable on such income or part thereof at the maximum marginal rate—Only the non-exempt portion of income would fall

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

164(2) where whole or any part of relevant income of the trust is not exempt under s. 11 or s. 12 because of contravention of s. 13(1)(d), tax is chargeable on such income or part thereof at the maximum marginal rate—Only the non-exempt portion of income would fall

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassess such income. The A.O. clearly had reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and the same can be reopened under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that in the instant case since the assessment has been reopened within four years from the end of the assessment year, the proviso to section

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of loans and advances taken from the group companies of Shri Bhavarlal Jain. The assessee vide reply dated 03/03/2015 claimed that the loan creditor M/s Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd. has informed the assessee that they have received notices u/s 133(6) of the Act and have filed the relevant details

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

reassessment order. The Pr. CIT erred in not following the Bombay High Court decision in the Appellant's own merged entity's case ICICI Limited in ITA No.6375/2010 dated February 8, 2012 for AY 1996-97 upholding the Mumbai Tribunal order in setting aside the order passed under section 263 of the Act as it was barred by limitation

ANNAPURNA BUILDCON INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

2. The above said workings made by the AO revealed that there was negative peak balance of Rs.46,74,164/- in the financial year relevant to AY. 2014-15 and Rs.1,64,20,877/- in the year relevant to AY. 2015- 16, meaning thereby, there was cash outflow in the above said two years to the extent mentioned above

DCIT CENT. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. RARE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

164/-(P.Y. Rs.229,86,85,468/-) as at the end of the year under scrutiny. The assessee ought to have made disallowance of expenditure in relation to the income which does not or shall not form part of total income as required u/s. 14A in accordance with the provision of Rule 8D. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee

DCIT CENT. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. RARE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

164/-(P.Y. Rs.229,86,85,468/-) as at the end of the year under scrutiny. The assessee ought to have made disallowance of expenditure in relation to the income which does not or shall not form part of total income as required u/s. 14A in accordance with the provision of Rule 8D. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee

SHRI GANADHIRAJ CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) -40, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 80P of Rs. 2,14,164. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from CIB/AIR that assessee had purchased and sold immovable property for Rs. 1,59,91,002 and Rs. 98,08,500, respectively, during the year under consideration, which has not been declared in the return of income for assessment year 2010–11, reassessment

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

164 ITR 639 (Pat,): Non- enquiry into source of capital is an error - Enquiry into the source of the initial capital is crucial for the AO. If that is not done, the assessment is bound to be erroneous and hence prejudicial to the revenue. 11.7. In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT 119751 99 ITR 375 (Delhi