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

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

Section 147 of the Act was disposed off \nas partly allowed. Assessee has also filed Cross Objection (C.O. \nNo.97/Mum/2024) in Revenue’s Appeal.\nITA No.2845/Mum/2024 [Revenue’s Appeal]\n67. The Revenue has raised three grounds of appeal in ITA No. \n2845/Mum/2024 which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\nGround No.1\n68. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue reads

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

sections 30 to 43A and,\ntherefore, unless there was a specific\nprohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be\njustified in. adding back the amount under\nrule 5(a), Therefore, even if the debit for\namortization is considered as an\nexpenditure, there is no specific prohibition\nagainst allowing such an expenditure\nunder the provisions of sections

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

Section 37(1) of the Act would not\napply. In this context, we respectfully agree with the\nobservations made by the coordinate Bench in case of\nMilestone Real Estate Fund (Supra). Pertinently, in case of\nM/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Mad.), identical issue of\ndisallowance of payment made to motor vehicle dealers\nu/s.37

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(1) , MUMBAI, MUMBAI

sections 148 to 153, assess\nor reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has\nescaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course\nof proceedings u/s 147, apart from the income escaping assessment on which the\nAO formed reason to believe about the escapement of income and issued notice\nu/s

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment do not exist any longer and no additions were ultimately made on that account, the additions in respect of other items which were not part of "reasons to believe" cannot be made. This issue has been decided by the High Court of judicature at Bombay in CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. (2011) 239

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the disallowance made under section\n36(1)(va) of the Act for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 also.\n15. In result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 to AY 2020...

reassessment do not exist any longer and\nno additions were ultimately made on that account, the additions in respect of\nother items which were not part of \"reasons to believe\" cannot be made. This\nissue has been decided by the High Court of judicature at Bombay in CIT vs. Jet\nAirways (1) Ltd. (2011) 239

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co [2011] 197 Taxman 202 has held that “Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co [2011] 197 Taxman 202 has held that “Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co [2011] 197 Taxman 202 has held that “Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section

M/S SHAH TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. Shah Traders, Dw-6251, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, Bandra East Mumbai – 400051 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabfs6536J V/S Dcit, Circle – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 of the Act. 8. It is evident from the record that during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed a copy of transactions made with M/s Swastik Corporation, wherein the assessee admitted that it purchased 64,008.80 gms of gold worth INR 17,51,239

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX. CIRCLE- LTU -2, , MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 020 PAN: AAACU0564G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri C Naresh Respondent by : ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR. Date of hearing : 11/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/04/2025 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of theNational

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

239/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee preferred objections before the ld. DRP. The ld. DRP issued directions u/s.144C(5) of the Act on 19/03/2021. Pursuant to the directions of the ld. DRP, the ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on 31/03/2021 determining total

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

reassessment proceedings have been initiated only with a view to revive original assessment proceedings which got time barred and hence ought to be quashed, Without prejudice, passing the final assessment order as against the draft assessment order Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 9. without prejudice, erred in upholding the validity of the draft order dated

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

239/- as disallowed by the\nAppellant in Return of Income\n10.\nWithout Prejudice to the above, AO be directed to restrict the disallowance u/s\n14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) only w.r.t. those investments which have yielded exempt income\nduring the year and exclude those investments which have not yielded exempt income\nduring the year.\nGROUND NO. 2 Short Deduction

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

section 14A to Rs.2,16,33,239/- as disallowed by the\nAppellant in Return of Income\n10.\nWithout Prejudice to the above, AO be directed to restrict the disallowance u/s\n14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) only w.r.t. those investments which have yielded exempt income\nduring the year and exclude those investments which have not yielded exempt income\nduring