HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment proceedings allows the appellant to rebut the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The only question to be seen is whether there is relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed requisite belief. Whether those facts stated in material are true or not, is not the concern at this stage. This is so because the formation

ITO WARD-4(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASHIK WOLLEN MILLS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of revenue is allowed in terms indicated here

reassessment of the assessment year 1994-95, but when faced with the order of the BIFR exempting operation of section 41(1) of the Act, proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, for the same amount of waiver under the same order he made additions in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94, only on the basis of book

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed on the Appellant vide order, dated 24.12.2018, assessing Total Loss at INR 51,66,28

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

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

28, 2006, under section 143(3)/147 of the Act. All the other issues on which the Commissioner of Income-tax is seeking to exercise the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act were concluded by virtue of an intimation under 17 section 143(1) of the Act which admittedly was done beyond a period of two years prior

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 ()

28,429/- in the savings bank account were forming part of reasons recorded. In other words, the reopening of assessment was for the specific purpose of assessing the amount of Rs.2,00,50,000/-. That being the case, it is necessary to examine whether the assessing officer in the re-assessment proceedings could have gone into the aspects raised

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 ()

28-01-1010 passed by learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (PCIT, hereinafter), Mumbai under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Briefly the facts are, the assessee, a resident company, is stated to be engaged in the business of generation and distribution of electricity. For the 2 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 assessment

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

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

28 Taxmann.com 328 (Mumbai –Trib.) in the case of Gurinder Singh Bava vs. DCIT …. Whether since assessment under section 153A was passed by Assessing Officer on basis of material available in return of income and there was no reference to any incriminating material found during search and since no assessment was abated, assessment under section 153A was to be quashed

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE- 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ABHISHEK MILLENNIUM CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

reassessment proceedings were initiated based upon the information received from Sales Tax (VAT) Department, State of Maharashtra under Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed assessment under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order, dated 30.03.2015 assessing total income at INR 9,29,24,980/- after making, inter alia, (a) an addition

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

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

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 158BB(1) would include material, information and evidence gathered as a result of post-search investigation on the basis of evidence found during the search or found as a result of search. Such information as would be available with the AO can be made the base for computation of undisclosed income of the block period. The term

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

section 147 which was not time barred or otherwise invalid. Likewise, in Atul Traders v. ITO, (2006) 282 ITR 536 (All), the account books or record and other material were all common which were being considered by the CIT(A) in the proceedings relating to three appeals. The petitioner had notice and opportunity of being heard. The reassessment proceedings were

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

reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In another case, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Chandra Prakash Agrawal v. Asst. CIT, (2006) 287 ITR 172 (All), wherein, the Income-tax Department had sent a requisition on 27-3-2002, under section 132A requisitioning the books of account and other documents seized by the Central Excise Department. The record