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

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

reassessment proceedings on incorrect understanding of\nfacts. We note that the Assessing Officer had identified the Assessee\nas a beneficiary of accommodation entries taken by the Assessee in\nrespect of sale of 44200 shares of KGN Enterprises. Admittedly, in\naggregate 44,200 share of KGN Enterprises were sold by the\nAssessee during the previous year(s) relevant to Assessment Years

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

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin

DCIT-14.1.1, MUMBAI vs. AMCOR FLEXIBLES INDIA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

28 July 2022. Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 permitted Central Government to make a scheme for the purposes of assessment, reassessment

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income of of of ₹21,14,67,970/- under section 10(34); and long under section 10(34); and long-term capital gains term

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income of of of ₹21,14,67,970/- under section 10(34); and long under section 10(34); and long-term capital gains term

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income of of of ₹21,14,67,970/- under section 10(34); and long under section 10(34); and long-term capital gains term

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income of of of ₹21,14,67,970/- under section 10(34); and long under section 10(34); and long-term capital gains term

M/S. STEECON INFRASTRUCTURE ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

28 was issued on the day on which the reassessment proceedings in respect of the escaped pre-dissolution income was completed and the said escaped income was brought to tax. In that case, the reassessment was not challenged but the contention urged was that while section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

28[a notice under section 148 or section 153A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 1530, as the case may be], as they stood immediately before the commencement

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

28, 32, 40 of annexure A-1 pertaining to the assessee were 1 pertaining to the assessee were forwarded forwarded to the Assessing Officer of the assessee Assessing Officer of the assessee following due procedure of law rocedure of law. Consequently, notice u/s 153C of the Act r.w.s. 153A was issued Consequently, notice u/s 153C of the Act r.w.s. 153A

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)

28. The Assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings contending that the same are bad in law. The primary submission advanced by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee was that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessment did not disclose any specific non-disclosure of material fact by the Assessee necessary for framing assessment

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)

28. The Assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings contending that the same are bad in law. The primary submission advanced by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee was that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessment did not disclose any specific non-disclosure of material fact by the Assessee necessary for framing assessment

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)

28. The Assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings contending that the same are bad in law. The primary submission advanced by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee was that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessment did not disclose any specific non-disclosure of material fact by the Assessee necessary for framing assessment

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)

28. The Assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings contending that the same are bad in law. The primary submission advanced by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee was that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessment did not disclose any specific non-disclosure of material fact by the Assessee necessary for framing assessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section