DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T FINCORP LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in directing to allow Long Term Capital Loss on sale of shares by the assessee company to M/s L & T Power Development Ltd. without appreciating the fact that such transfer

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

47(iii) and section 48 would not apply. For submission related to the order of Tribunal in Bloom Packagingn and Uniphos International Ltd was not decided the issue on merits. The ld. Sr. Counsel replied that the submission is factually incorrect. In the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Bloom Packaging (ITA No. 4663/Mum/2015) and Uniphos International

MR. ANTHONY P LEWIS,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22(1)(1), MUMBAI

v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC). 17. The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from 1-4-1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which

SHRI GANADHIRAJ CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) -40, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the property was purchased and occupied by the assessee society since 1969. As the seller of the property had expired, the conveyance deed of the property was not executed in its favour by the legal heirs of the seller and therefore, the name of the society was not entered in M/s. Shri Ganadhiraj Co– Operative

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

reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an „associated enterprises‟, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an „associated enterprises‟, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an ‘associated enterprises’, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an ‘associated enterprises’, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

2) read with section 47(vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

2) read with section 47(vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

2) read with section 47(vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

2) read with section 47(vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v

RAMESH SALECHA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

47,628/- (21,81,000 + 66,628) without giving a notice of enhancement and opportunity of being heard. The action of the learned CIT(A) is bereft of any rational and lacks statutory sanctity. 10. Having regard to the facts of the case, provisions of law & judicial propositions, the entire amount of additions made at Rs. 66,62,862/- (peak

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

v.\nITO\n[2018] 89\ntaxmann.com\n71(Legal PB\nPg. No. 35-38)\nHeld that \"for the purpose of Computation\nof period limitation for reassessment as\nprescribed in sub-section (2) of section\n150 of the Act limitation provided\nunder section 149 of the Act has to be\ncounted from the end of relevant\n assessment year till date

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

2) read with section 47(vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section