INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

d) of the Act which had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

d) of the Act which had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

d) of the Act which had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

d) of the Act which had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

d) of the Act which had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in had been allowed in favour of the Petitioner was not in conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions of the said section, which conformity with the provisions

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sai Prerana Co-Op Society Ltd., Ito-7(3)(2), 317, Puran Aasha Bldg. Gr. Fl. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Narashi Natha Street, Katha Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Bazar Musjid Bunder (W), 43 Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 009. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order

2 the Supreme Court held: “ The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the The Assessing Offcer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on power

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

D Atekar v. ITO in ITA.No. 3537/Mum/2018 dated 07.02.2019 5. He further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Panaroma Builders Pvt. Ltd., [224 Taxman 203] submits that section 292BB of the Act does not apply to issue of notice, neither, it cures the defect or enlarges the statutory

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

D Atekar v. ITO in ITA.No. 3537/Mum/2018 dated 07.02.2019 5. He further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Panaroma Builders Pvt. Ltd., [224 Taxman 203] submits that section 292BB of the Act does not apply to issue of notice, neither, it cures the defect or enlarges the statutory

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

D Atekar v. ITO in ITA.No. 3537/Mum/2018 dated 07.02.2019 5. He further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Panaroma Builders Pvt. Ltd., [224 Taxman 203] submits that section 292BB of the Act does not apply to issue of notice, neither, it cures the defect or enlarges the statutory

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

D Atekar v. ITO in ITA.No. 3537/Mum/2018 dated 07.02.2019 5. He further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Panaroma Builders Pvt. Ltd., [224 Taxman 203] submits that section 292BB of the Act does not apply to issue of notice, neither, it cures the defect or enlarges the statutory

ASGAR MOHAMMED HUSSAIN GHADIALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -28, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 13.01.2017 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2 Shri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali 2. The assessee in its appeal raised various grounds of appeal on merits

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

Appeal is allowed

D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant/Assessee has challenged the order, dated 25.03.2022, passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Mumbai - 2, [hereinafter referred to as ‗the PCIT‘] under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘] pertaining to the Assessment

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4295/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, CC-8(2) Vs Rakesh Kathotia Room No. 658, Aayakar Flat No. 2, 2nd Floor, Bhavan, MK Road, Vandam CHS, Donga Mumbai – 400020. Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai – 400 006. PAN – AJJPK1926B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Mr. Prashant Ghumare Revenue

SANJAY CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,THANE vs. THE PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX 1, THANE

In the result we allow the ground no

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

27,989/-. It is pertinent to mention that case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for specific reasons as mentioned supra. One of the reasons assigned for scrutiny was verification of the claim u/s. 80P. A specific enquiry was carried out by the AO considering the submissions of the assessee. After verification of the assessee’s submission, AO accepted

CNI RESEARCH LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Cni Research Ltd. Dcit-5(1), A/12 Gokul Arcade, Mumbai बनाम/ Sahar Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai-400057 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaccc2842H

D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22/04/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground raised in the present appeal pertains to making disallowance of Rs.4,61,358/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel

AMOHA TRADERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Justice Shri P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2007-08)

d) Loan given to Imtiaz Khan - Rs. 30,000/- e) Loan given to Kurlon Ltd. -Rs. 28,531/- f) Sundry Balances written off- Rs. 3,691/-, 8) The appellant prays that if your honours are not inclined to allow the appellant's claim of bad debts amounting to Rs. 61,03,566/-, the same may be held to be business

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.08.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The various grounds raised by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant/Assessee has challenged the order, dated 30.03.2021, passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 6, [hereinafter referred to as „the PCIT‟] under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] whereby the Assessment Order, dated