SAKUN GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

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

reassessment orders in question were legally unsustainable.” 8. Since the Revenue could not produce before us any evidence to show that notice u/s. 143(2) has been issued or served to the assessee the re- assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is void ab-initio in view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

LITTLE DIAM ,GUJARAT vs. ACIT CC -1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

reassessment conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case

LAXMI TRADING COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

reassessment conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case

AMIT DIAMONDS,GUJARAT vs. ACIT CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

reassessment conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case

ABHIMAN GEMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT .CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

reassessment conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case

LAVAPAL R. SINGH,GUJARAT vs. SCIT , CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

reassessment conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case

LUNKARAN KOTHARI,SURAT vs. ACIT CC -1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

reassessment conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case

ANKITA EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

reassessment conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reasses proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case

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 ()

251,22,81,103/- under the normal provisions and book profit of Rs.1099,44,00,614/- under section 115JB of the Act. The assessing officer passed a draft assessment order in case of the assessee under section 144C(1) of the Act which was finalized in pursuance to the directions learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), vide assessment order passed under

SHAPOORJI PALLANJI AND COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

2) Sheth Brother vs JCIT (2001) 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) 3) CIT vs Corporation Bank Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) 4) Garden Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (1999) 237 ITR 668 (Guj.) 5) CIT vs Hickson & Dadajee Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 368 (Born.) 6) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 7) Garden Silk

THE ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2 Nitan Chhatwal of the Act on 29-09-2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,57,59,670/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.2015 accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands of the assessee under section

ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2 Nitan Chhatwal of the Act on 29-09-2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,57,59,670/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.2015 accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands of the assessee under section

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) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 4.2. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after

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) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 4.2. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after

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) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 4.2. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, I find that after

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

251\nvi. Decision of Delhi bench of the ITAT in case of MDLR\nhotels private limited ITA number 3076/del/2016 dated\n8/2/2023.\nvii. Decision of Delhi bench in case of Subhash Dabas ITA\nnumber 2399/del/2016 dated 25/11/2021 holding that\nthere is no application of mind by the approving\nauthority because the addition has been approved which\nare opening balances

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

251). He, accordingly, made addition of Rs. 2,82,51,259/- 3.6. The AO, while computing the book profits u/s 115JB, made the addition of Rs. 2,82,51,260/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A as per P&L A/c. 3.7. In course of assessment proceedings the AO further noticed that in respect of dividend income from mutual funds

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI.

251\nvi.\nDecision of Delhi bench of the ITAT in case of MDLR\nhotels private limited ITA number 3076/del/2016 dated\n8/2/2023.\nvii.\nDecision of Delhi bench in case of Subhash Dabas ITA\nnumber 2399/del/2016 dated 25/11/2021 holding that\nthere is no application of mind by the approving\nauthority because the addition has been approved which\nare opening balances