DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

14 Rakesh Kothotia, Mumbai. loan inclusive of interest, (earlier availed by it from Authum under duly executed agreements between them) and remaining outstanding as on 30.11.2016; and 1. for the reasons discussed under (iii) hereinabove, it is suffice to submit that receipt back of loan receivable from Khazana is nothing but receipt of own funds by Authum (earlier advanced

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

14. The assessments in consideration before us consideration before us are for assessment years s 2010-11 and 2012-13, which are prior to the death of the assessee Shri which are prior to the death of the assessee Shri which are prior to the death of the assessee Shri Vandravan P. Shah and therefore, under the provisions of section

GLOBAL BUSINESS CONEXXTIONS PVT.LTD.,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the Appellant 11. on the ground that income liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer made addition of INR 11,83,73,433/- under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act which was confirmed

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

14\nITA No.4260, 4261, 4306, 4307 & 4545/MUM/2023\nMehli Mehta Music Foundation\nthat do not violate any central or state regulation, doesn't in general\nrepresent a profit making activity. For the sake of convenience the\nrelevant extract from the CBDT circular is reproduced as under:\n\"Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"Act') defines \"charitable\npurpose

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings even after expiry of four\nyears from end of relevant assessment year was justified.\nSohar Siraj Lokhandwala V/s ACIT (1994) 77 Taxman 302 (Bombay\nHC)- Mere production of evidence before Assessing Officer is not\nenough and there may be an omission or failure on part of assessee\nto make a 'full' and 'true' disclosure if some material

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

14\nITA No.4260, 4261, 4306, 4307 & 4545/MUM/2023\nMehli Mehta Music Foundation\nthat do not violate any central or state regulation, doesn't in general\nrepresent a profit making activity. For the sake of convenience the\nrelevant extract from the CBDT circular is reproduced as under:\n"Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"Act') defines \"charitable\npurpose

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

14[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 15[sub- sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall

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

14[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 15[sub- sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

reassessment proceedings even after expiry of four\nyears from end of relevant assessment year was justified.\nSohar Siraj Lokhandwala V/s ACIT (1994) 77 Taxman 302 (Bombay\nHC)- Mere production of evidence before Assessing Officer is not\nenough and there may be an omission or failure on part of assessee\nto make a 'full' and 'true' disclosure if some material

M/S. BIOBUILD DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

iii) Such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act; or (iv) Excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed Explanation 3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

iii) to\nSection 14A without establishing that such expenditure was indeed incurred for earning\nexempt dividend income;\nc.\nunder section 14A, it is very much clear that only the expenditure which has been proved\nto be incurred in relation to earning of tax-free income can be disallowed and, the section\ncannot be extended to disallow even the expenditure which

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

14-03-2015 accepting the NIL income declared by the assessee.\n\n8. We noticed earlier that the assessee has been registered as a\n\"charitable trust/institution” under sec.12AA and 80G of the Act. The\nassessing officer, while completing the assessment of the assessee for AY\n2015-16, took the view that the assessee is a charitable trust/institution\nonly

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." 12. The sub-section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by the Finance

SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

14-03-2015 accepting the NIL income declared by the assessee.\n8. We noticed earlier that the assessee has been registered as a\n\"charitable trust/institution” under sec.12AA and 80G of the Act. The\nassessing officer, while completing the assessment of the assessee for AY\n2015-16, took the view that the assessee is a charitable trust/institution\nonly and hence

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

iii) handling internal audit of the completed assessments, (iv) disposal of appeals, (v) representing Departmental cases in the Appellate Tribunal, (vi) handling search and seizure matters, etc. The above shows that some of the Deputy Commissioners and Deputy Directors have been assigned duties of higher responsibility. Therefore, there is need to recognize 13 the aforesaid distinction in responsibility by making

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

iii) Professional Fees – Rs. 2,07,865/- The assessee had received professional and technical fees of Rs. 4,15,730/-. In absence of explanation, 50% thereof amounting to Rs. 2,07,865/- was added as business income. (iv) Rent Receipts – Rs. 2,00,25,538/- The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee received rent receipts aggregating to Rs. 2

RITESH SINGH ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TREND ELECTRONICS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

2) convey the same sense and the proceedings in both the sub-sections must be such as can in both the sub sections must be such as can appropriately be dealt with by the winding up appropriately be dealt with by the winding up court. The Income Tax Act is, in our opinion, a court. The Inco

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

iii) Bansilal B. Raisoni& Sons vs ACIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 20 (Bom) “Section 124, read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessing Officer - Jurisdiction of (Objection to) - Whether time limit for raising objection to jurisdiction of Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 124 has a relation to Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction - Held