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

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

CYRUS PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

reassessment is based only on borrowed satisfaction. 3. Without any prejudice to Ground - 1 and 2 above, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 95,83,954/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act in respect of sale proceeds of shares of Anuh Pharma Ltd. by wrongly treating the sale proceeds as unexplained cash

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

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 444 ITR 1, would apply. In that case, the impugned Notices though issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act of 1961, would be considered to be issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961, as amended by the Finance

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

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 444 ITR 1, would apply. In that case, the impugned Notices though issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act of 1961, would be considered to be issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961, as amended by the Finance

DCIT CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 444 ITR 1, would apply. In that case, the impugned Notices though issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act of 1961, would be considered to be issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961, as amended by the Finance

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 444 ITR 1, would apply. In that case, the impugned Notices though issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act of 1961, would be considered to be issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961, as amended by the Finance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RISHABRAJ INFRA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 3246/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2015-16) Acit, C.Circle -2(1), Vs. Rishabraj Infrapvtltd., Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 212, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Bldg No. 3, Hari Om Mumbai – 400020. Plaza, Mg Road, Boravali (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcv2975P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Riddhi Mishra.Dr Revenue By : Mr.Karan Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings u/s 13 2 of the Act establish that the reliefs granted under the finalized assessment/reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of search operation. 8.6 The aforesaid ratio was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.] The first proviso to Section 149 of the Act provides that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any point of time in a case for a relevant

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

section 139; (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

section 139; (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment notice of the assessee on the PE i.e. Aptivaa India. In this regard, we notice that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Atlanta Capital (P.) Ltd [2020] 119 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) has 9 ITA 1985 & CO 55/Mum/2024 Aptivaa Middle East FZE considered the issue of notice under section

TARUNA KATARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mrs. Taruna Kataria, The Ito-19(2)(2), 404, Bule Heaven, Nehru Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Acgpk 7391 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment ground No. 2 of the appeal challenging validity of the ground No. 2 of the appeal challenging validity of the is concerned, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that , the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that , the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee was not interested in pursuing the said grounds. assessee was not interested