TIRUPATI REDDY MUKKU,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-27(3), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act vide order dated 25/10/2016 at total income of INR 1,56,92,247/- after making disallowance of INR 40,04,487/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appeal preferred against the Assessment Order dated 4. 25/10/2016 before CIT(A) was dismissed vide order dated

THE PANCHRATNA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

194I. Thus, it appears the income received from these companies does not fall within the ambit of principle of mutuality which needs further examination. Also in the absence of exact details, it could not be ascertained whether this income has been credited in the income and Expenditure Account or not. Moreover, the service tax of Rs. 15,13,260/- credited

SANDEEP CHAMPAKLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings conducted u/s 147 of the Act were bad in law and void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing order u/s 250 of the Act and confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O. without granting effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred