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

Section 37\n==End of OCR for page 10==\nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car\ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material,\nthe Assessing Officer initiate reassessment proceedings\nconcluding as under:\n“For the A.Y.2010-11, the nature of expenses in the form of\npayments made to motor car dealers needs

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

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

Section 147 of the Act, the\nRevenue could take recourse to assessment or reassessment\nproceedings in the said assessment year. This aspect has been\nconsidered and recorded by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in\nParagraph 20

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

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. 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

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

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

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

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, an assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year iod of four years from

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

20. It is thus clear that in the event any incriminating material is found during the search, the Revenue necessarily would be required to take recourse to the provisions of Section 153A and in the event no incriminating material found during the search, then the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment