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

reassessment proceedings were initiated on\nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax\n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was\nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of\nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car\ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement\nof expenses

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

Section 37\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834,\n2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024\n Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020\n11\nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car\ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material,\nthe

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834,\n2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024\n Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020\n11\n\nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car\ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment. The Commissioner, when he exercised his jurisdiction under section 263, in the facts of the present case, was under a bar of limitation since limitation would begin to run from the date on which the 20

M/S. RAVI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-17, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Section 147 as well as Explanation 3 enables the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax which he has reason to believe had escaped 20

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

reassessment was not the same. The facts of the present case are similar to those in Alagendran Finance which must, therefore, apply. 12) For these reasons, we are of the view that the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 is barred by limitation. We clarify that this would not preclude the Revenue from taking recourse to any other

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

Section 37 \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 \n Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 \n10 \nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car \ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material, \nthe Assessing

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

Section 147 of the Act, the Revenue could take recourse to assessment or reassessment proceedings in the said assessment year. This aspect has been considered and recorded by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Paragraph 20

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

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Section 37\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834,\n2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024\n Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020\n11\n\nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car\ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

section 148A(b) providing opportunity to the assessee; under section 148A(b) providing opportunity to the assessee; thirdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass rdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass rdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass a speaking order under section 148A(d) determining whether

SAMBHAVANATH INFRABUILD FARMS (SUCCESSOR TO LODHA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Cit– Central Circle – 7(3) {Successor To Lodha Construction Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aalcs1394M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

reassessment by way reasons for reopening of assessment, time limit for issue of notice and provision for obtaining sanction of higher authority in certain circumstances. Under the provisions of section 153A to 153C these hurdles are cleared by using the non abstante clause in the said section. In other words, under 20

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

20. A question may arise as to how this is sought to be achieved where an assessment order had already been passed in respect of all or any of those six assessment years, either under Section 143(1)(a) or Section 143(3) of the Act. If such an order is already in existence, having obviously been passed prior

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business deductions and Chapter VI deductions and Chapter VI-A incentives must be respected, and A incentives must be respected, and their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. Accordingly

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 148 dated 06.03.2017. In the reassessment proceedings that followed, the Assessing Officer treated the long-term capital gain declared by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Ltd. as bogus and made an addition of Rs.5,20

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 148 dated 06.03.2017. In the reassessment proceedings that followed, the Assessing Officer treated the long-term capital gain declared by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Ltd. as bogus and made an addition of Rs.5,20

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 148 dated 06.03.2017. In the reassessment proceedings that followed, the Assessing Officer treated the long-term capital gain declared by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Ltd. as bogus and made an addition of Rs.5,20

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 148 dated 06.03.2017. In the reassessment proceedings that followed, the Assessing Officer treated the long-term capital gain declared by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Ltd. as bogus and made an addition of Rs.5,20

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 148 dated 06.03.2017. In the reassessment proceedings that followed, the Assessing Officer treated the long-term capital gain declared by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Ltd. as bogus and made an addition of Rs.5,20