V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

V HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD ( FORMELRY TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 32(1)(ii), that is, @ 25%; and lastly, there was omission on the part of the AO to examine this fact and accordingly, he was directed to examine and consider the submissions as well as evidences which assessee may choose to produce for adjudicating for the purpose of the assessment on merits. 4. In pursuance thereof, the AO initiated

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

32,413/- was made under Section 37\n==End of OCR for page 10==\nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car\ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material,\nthe Assessing Officer initiate reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated on\nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax\n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was\nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of\nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car\ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement\nof expenses

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)

reassessment proceedings were initiated on\nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax\n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was\nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of\nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car\ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement\nof expenses

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated on\nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax\n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was\nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of\nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car\ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement\nof expenses

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated on \nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax \n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was \nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of \nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car \ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement \nof expenses

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

Appeal is allowed

32,61,165/-, under the provision of Section 115JB of the Act. 4. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and vide order, dated 31.03.2015, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act at Total Loss of INR 2 Assessment Years: 2011-12 66,39,90,746/- under normal provisions

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated on\nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax\n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was\nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of\nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car\ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement\nof expenses

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

reassessment order passed by ld. A.O. 147 r.w.s.143(3) holding wrongly the said assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That the ld. Principal CIT while setting aside the assessment order has erred in erroneously applying the concept of accrual system of accounting in the case by overlooking the concept of real income theory

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

reassess the total income but there is a cap on the scope of additions in such assessment, being the items of income 'unearthed during the search'. In other words, the determination of 'total income' in respect of the assessment years for which the assessments are already completed on the date of search, shall not be influenced by the items

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the permissible time limit, making them void ab initio.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 147", "Section 144B", "Section 250", "Section 143(3)", "Section 148A", "Section 148", "Section 32

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

reassessment for the assessment year under consideration was not pending and no addition/disallowance is permissible in respect of such unabated assessment year in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and /or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. The appellant prays

J.N INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

reassessment for the assessment year under consideration was not pending and no addition/disallowance is permissible in respect of such unabated assessment year in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and /or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. The appellant prays