MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

2) of the Act ought to have been issued by 30 September 2009 which was the date of the expiry of the period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. A notice was, however, issued on 6 October 2009 much beyond the period of six months. In such a situation, there

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

2) of the Act ought to have been issued by 30 September 2009 which was the date of the expiry of the period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. A notice was, however, issued on 6 October 2009 much beyond the period of six months. In such a situation, there

ASGAR MOHAMMED HUSSAIN GHADIALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

reassessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is mandatory and absence of notice cannot be held to be curable defect u/s. 292BB of the Act even though assessee participated in the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: tax Act, 1961: Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR expenditure of Rs.24,98,000/ expenditure of Rs.24

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

30 days from the date of issue of notice u/s 142(1), 143(2) and after completion of assessment. We find that the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Bansilai B Raisoni vs. ACiT, (2019) 260 Taxman 281 (Bombay) had considered the issue in light of section 124(3) of the Act, and held that the time

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

2) of section 263 stipulates that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. That period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the original order of assessment dated

SHUMBHLAXMI DYETEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Ld. Cit(A). Thus Assessee Request To Raise This Legal Point As Additional Ground.

2) of the Act ought to have been issued by 30 September 2009 which was the date of the expiry of the period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. A notice was, however, issued on 6 October 2009 much beyond the period of six months. In such a situation, there

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, MUMBAI

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

reassessment proceedings, in the absence of evidence of service of notice under section 143(2), we will take up all these grievances together. 4. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are as follows. The assessee before us is a cooperative society registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act 1975, and has, as its objects, promotion of game of cricket

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, MUMBAI

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

reassessment proceedings, in the absence of evidence of service of notice under section 143(2), we will take up all these grievances together. 4. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are as follows. The assessee before us is a cooperative society registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act 1975, and has, as its objects, promotion of game of cricket

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

2(22)(a) of the Act in the hands of the members of Shroff family and brought to tax under section 115-O of the Act in the hands of Bloom Packaging and Uniphos International by the CIT(A) was deleted. 20. For submission of ld. Special Counsel that order of Tribunal in case Ultima was based on different fact

CNI RESEARCH LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Cni Research Ltd. Dcit-5(1), A/12 Gokul Arcade, Mumbai बनाम/ Sahar Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai-400057 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaccc2842H

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.” 2.5. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers

AMOHA TRADERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Justice Shri P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2007-08)

30,000/- e) Loan given to Kurlon Ltd. -Rs. 28,531/- f) Sundry Balances written off- Rs. 3,691/-, 8) The appellant prays that if your honours are not inclined to allow the appellant's claim of bad debts amounting to Rs. 61,03,566/-, the same may be held to be business loss and your honours may hold that

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

2) : In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head “Income from other sources”, namely :— [(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of INR 11,83,73,433/- as deemed dividend under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is deleted and the order dated 28/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act is quashed. The Revenue would

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

2) of section 263 stipulates that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. That period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the original order of assessment dated

INDUCTO STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Inducto Steel Ltd. Acit, 156, Maker Chamber Vi, Cc-38, बनाम/ 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci1045E

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.” 2.6. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

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.” 3.4. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

2)(1), Mumbai.\n3. For the year under consideration, the appellant filed a return of\nincome declaring an income of Rs.1,86,429/- on 31/03/2004.\nThe return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the on 21-04-\n2004.\n4. Thereafter, nothing was heard till 31-03-2019, on which day, the\nLearned A.O. issued a notice