HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purposes of subsections (1) and (1A) of Section 201

M/S. ICICI SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD)2(2) (2) , MUMBAI

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

section 201 of the Act notwithstanding the fact that reassessment proceedings have been initiated to assess the payee for the AY 2015- 16. 7. The learned

HATHWAY C NET P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hathway C-Net Private The Tax Recovery Officer Limited, Rahejas, 4Th Floor, (Tds)-1 Smt. K.G. Mittal बिधम/ Corners Of Main Avenue & Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Vs. V.P. Road, Santa Cruz (West) Charni Road-(West), Mumbai- 400054 Mumbai-400 002 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaach8338K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

reassessment are under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act P a g e | 15 ITA No. 4112/Mum/2016 AY: 2003-04 Hathway C-Net Private Ltd. Vs. TRO (TDS) and they are on a completely different footing and, therefore, do not merit consideration for the purposes of this case. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable

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

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

reassessment proceedings. Thus, he 5 A.Y. 2010-11 submitted, there being no error in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, proceeding under section 263 of the Act would not lie. He submitted, since the learned PCIT could not have revised original assessment order passed under section

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

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

201 1] 330 ITR 568 (Mad.) 8. L.G.Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.) 5 ITA 640/Mum/2021 9. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi, dated 14.05.2020 10. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 11. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 71 Taxmann 585 (Bom.) 12. PCIT Vs. Delhi

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

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

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

reassessment proceedings is dismissed as having been \nrendered infructuous. \n156. Thus, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly \nallowed. \n157. In result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue [ITA \nNo.2836/Mum/2024] is dismissed and appeal preferred by the \nAssessee [ITA No.2619/Mum/2024] is partly allowed. \n ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2016-2017 \nITA No.2834/Mum/2024(Revenue’s Appeal) \n158. We wouldnext take

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004