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

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

MITHALAL D MUTHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

DY CIT CC 6(4) , MUMBAI vs. SMT. DEVAL D THAKKAR [NOW KNOWN AS SMT DEVAL E ANTHONY], MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

Reassessment for 1998-99 could not be reopened beyond 31.03.2005 in terms of provisions of Section 149 of the Act as applicable at the relevant time. The petitioner s return for assessment year 1998-99 became barred by limitation on 31.03.2005. The question of revival of the period of limitation for reopening assessment for AY 1998-99 by taking recourse

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment unless some incriminating material concerning those issues were found during the course of search. Otherwise, in the concluded assessments which have been reopened u/s 153A, the assessing officer should restrict himself with the additions arising out of the incriminating materials found during the course of search." 20.21 In the case of Viraj Forgings Ltd. vs. DOT [ITA No. 1948/M/2008

ADIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. AON GLOBAL INSURANCE SERVICE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.5184 To 5186/Mum/2009 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2008-09) Adit (International Taxation)- Vs. M/S Aon Global 1(1), Mumbai Insurance Service Limited, 302, Dalamal House, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थममी रेखम सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 1565 H (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vandana Sagar यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/11/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In All The Three Assessment Years Under Consideration, Therefore All The Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Now Disposed Off By This Order For Convenience & Brevity. Grounds Taken For The Assessment Year 2006-07 Are As Under :- “1 . On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Non-Resident Insurers From The Non Treaty Countries Have No Business Connection In 2

192 to 195 are not applicable in the case of the appellant. Further the AO himself has held that no TDS is required in respect of payments made to ultimate beneficiaries who were located in countries with whom India has DTAA. Therefore, remittances are not chargeable to tax in India. 1.3.5 As regards remittance made to non-treaty countries

ADIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. AON GLOBAL INSURANCE SERVICE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.5184 To 5186/Mum/2009 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2008-09) Adit (International Taxation)- Vs. M/S Aon Global 1(1), Mumbai Insurance Service Limited, 302, Dalamal House, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थममी रेखम सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 1565 H (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vandana Sagar यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/11/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In All The Three Assessment Years Under Consideration, Therefore All The Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Now Disposed Off By This Order For Convenience & Brevity. Grounds Taken For The Assessment Year 2006-07 Are As Under :- “1 . On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Non-Resident Insurers From The Non Treaty Countries Have No Business Connection In 2

192 to 195 are not applicable in the case of the appellant. Further the AO himself has held that no TDS is required in respect of payments made to ultimate beneficiaries who were located in countries with whom India has DTAA. Therefore, remittances are not chargeable to tax in India. 1.3.5 As regards remittance made to non-treaty countries

KAISHAR INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly Ground No.16 raised by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 14A of the Act (c) disallowance of INR.16,30,892/- related to motor car 4 Assessment Year 2010-2011 4. Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the appeal before the Learned CIT(A), Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order, dated 03/07/2025. 5. Now, the Assessee has carried the issue before this Tribunal on the grounds reproduced

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 are under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and they are on a completely different footing and, therefore, do not merit consideration for the purposes of this case. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed by Section 153 of the Act for completion of proceedings, we have been told that

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment are under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and they are on a completely different footing and, therefore, do not merit consideration for the purposes of this case. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed by Section 153 of the Act for completion of proceedings, we have been told that

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment are under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and they are on a completely different footing and, therefore, do not merit consideration for the purposes of this case. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed by Section 153 of the Act for completion of proceedings, we have been told that

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 have not been challenged on behalf of the Assessee. The appeals before the Tribunal are being pursued by the mother of the Appellant being his legal heir and duly constituted attorney of other ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed t order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2019 on 03.12.2019, denied the deduction u/s 80P the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income of Rs.97,49,707/ Act in respect of interest income of Rs.97