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

293 ITR 1 (SC). 11. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR, Shri B Shrinivasan argued that revision order passed by CIT under section 263 of the Act dated 30- 03-2017 has revised reassessment

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 ()

293 ITR 1 (SC) 2. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2010] 325 ITR 574 (Bom.) 3. CIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 74 (Bom.) 4. Indira Industries Vs. PCIT, [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 103 (Mad.) 5. CIT Vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd, [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.) 6. CIT Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., [2013] 37 taxmann.com

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 ()

293 ITR 1 (SC) 5 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 2. Àsoka Buildcon Ltd vs ACIT 325 ITR 574 (Bom) 3. CIT vs ICICI Bank Ltd 343 ITR 74 (Bom) 4. M/s Janata Industries vs PCIT ITA No.4025 & 4026/Mum/2017 dt 23- 05-2018 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of learned PCIT, the learned departmental representative submitted, the order passed under section

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL),-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263 (2) of the Act. Admittedly, the reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee only to make disallowance on account of certain non-genuine payments made to contractors which was duly made in the reassessment order dated 09/12/2019. In our considered opinion, it cannot be said that not adding the provisions for foreseeable losses while computing book profits u/s.115JB

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153Cof the Act must

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and\nissued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notice,\nthe assessee filed his return of income and statutory notices under section\n143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the\nassessee. The AO vide order dated 28/12/2018 passed

METROPOLITAN STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

293 ITR 1 [2007] as well as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd. 368 ITR 655 (Bom). Both these case laws had expounded that the Commissioner could not exercise his 4 revisionary power u/s. 263 on items which were not the subject matter of reassessment. The ld. CIT distinguished these

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and\nissued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notice,\nthe assessee filed his return of income and statutory notices under section\n143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the\nassessee. The AO vide order dated 28/12/2018 passed

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 153C of the Act cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee. be invoked in the case of the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer Thus, the Assessing Officer has correctly invoked reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act has correctly invoked reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act has correctly invoked reassessment proceedings

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

293/- was raised in A.Y. 2003-04 and addition to the tune of ` 77,58,502/- was raised in A.Y. 2004-05 . Since the assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. Issue

INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (E)- I(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

293 ITR 1 (SC). The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- “7. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax would clearly demonstrate that only that part of order of assessment which related to lease equalization fund was found to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The proceedings for reassessment