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

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and orders were quashed.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "143(3

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section\n143(3

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section\n143(3

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

1.\nThe CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section\n143(3

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section\n143(3

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

3(1) of the TOLA i.e. between 20th March 2020 to 31st\n\n5\nITA Nos.3674/Mum/2025 and ors.\nShapoorji Pallonji Mistry\nAYs 2015-16 and 2016-17\nMarch 2021 and thus TOLA is not applicable to the assessee and thus notice u/s\n148 is barred by limitation as per proviso to section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by\ntreating the reassessment order passed under section\n143(3

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

1) and (2) shall apply apply apply to to to the the the following following following classes classes classes of of of assessments, assessments, assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of sub to the provisions of sub-sections (3

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

1) and (2) shall apply apply apply to to to the the the following following following classes classes classes of of of assessments, assessments, assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of sub to the provisions of sub-sections (3

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by \ntreating the reassessment order passed under section \n143(3

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

3. The assessee is a company functioning as Principal Financial Institution for promotion, financing and development of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises and to co-ordinate the functions of Institutions engaged in similar activities. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 29.09.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 1552,64,02,200/- under the normal provisions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

3. The assessee is a company functioning as Principal Financial Institution for promotion, financing and development of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises and to co-ordinate the functions of Institutions engaged in similar activities. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 29.09.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 1552,64,02,200/- under the normal provisions

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

3. The assessee is a company functioning as Principal Financial Institution for promotion, financing and development of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises and to co-ordinate the functions of Institutions engaged in similar activities. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 29.09.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 1552,64,02,200/- under the normal provisions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

3. The assessee is a company functioning as Principal Financial Institution for promotion, financing and development of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises and to co-ordinate the functions of Institutions engaged in similar activities. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 29.09.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 1552,64,02,200/- under the normal provisions

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by \ntreating the reassessment order passed under section \n143(3

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

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

3) of the Act. Section 263(1) of the Act provides for revision of an order passed by the Assessing Officer in any proceedings under the Act. Thus, there is no doubt that the specified commissioner can invoke the provisions of Section 263 of the Act to revise the intimation/order Assessment Year 2019-2020 passed under Section 143(1

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

1. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is invalid, bad-in-law and against the principles of natural justice. (b) The Ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the validity of the reassessment order by referring to the proviso to Explanation (2) of section

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

1. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is invalid, bad-in-law and against the principles of natural justice. (b) The Ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the validity of the reassessment order by referring to the proviso to Explanation (2) of section

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

reassessment beyond 3 years under section 149(1)(b), the donation entry is clearly traceable in the books and 149(1