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

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

NIKHIL RASHIKLAL VORA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

Section 68 of the Act. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition, holding that On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition, holding that On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition, holding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature and ailed to discharge the onus of proving the nature

DCIT-14.1.1, MUMBAI vs. AMCOR FLEXIBLES INDIA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act on 26.05.2023 disallowing depreciation on goodwill of Rs. 2,37,83,195

DCIT IT 3.1.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JEFFERIES LLC , MUMBAI

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Act dated 10\nFebruary 2020, was passed without a document identification number and hence,\nthe order shall be regarded as invalid and deemed to never been issued.\nb. in not providing a copy of the remand report submitted by the Learned

OWENS CORNING INSULATING SYSTEMS CANADA LP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings and therefore was required to be confined to the directions of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. It is trite that the appellant cannot be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. Further, it is also trite that the Tribunal has no power under

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

195 (SC)].\n11. Further, recently, in almost identical facts and circumstances as in the present\ncase, this Court in the case of Prabhakar Nerulkar Vs. PCIT, Panaji, Goa (Writ\nPetition No.443 of 2024 Goa Bench decided on 21.07.2025), held that the\nreopening notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 is bad\nin law if sanction

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 147 of the Act was disposed off \nas partly allowed. Assessee has also filed Cross Objection (C.O. \nNo.97/Mum/2024) in Revenue’s Appeal.\nITA No.2845/Mum/2024 [Revenue’s Appeal]\n67. The Revenue has raised three grounds of appeal in ITA No. \n2845/Mum/2024 which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\nGround No.1\n68. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue reads

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

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

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

195 taxman 197, following observation of Hon'ble\nCourt clinches the issue that is raised for consideration before this\nTribunal in the present facts of the case.:\n“5. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is\nthe formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer that any income\nchargeable

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

SHIVRAM S SHETTY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

195 (SC)].\n11. Further, recently, in almost identical facts and circumstances as in the present\ncase, this Court in the case of Prabhakar Nerulkar Vs. PCIT, Panaji, Goa (Writ\nPetition No.443 of 2024 Goa Bench decided on 21.07.2025), held that the\nreopening notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 is bad\nin law if sanction

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

reassessment proceedings and the assessment order, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "115JB", "37", "40(1)", "40(2A)", "40(a)(i)", "195

DY. COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PRASAD SHETTY, SION, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

195 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by relying on the judgment of Lovely Exports (Supra.), whereas it is known that the above judgment has been challenged time and again

PRAKASH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Act on the basis information received from Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit- Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2011-12 1(3), Mumbai, and notice dated 31/03/2016 was issued to the Appellant under Section 148 of the Act. 10.8. During the re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer took note

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment order itself does not survive. It is relevant to refer to decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd [2010] [195 Taxman 117 (Bombay)] wherein it is held as under: “The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section