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 ()

34); and long-term capital gains term capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which

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 ()

34); and long-term capital gains term capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings on incorrect understanding of\nfacts. We note that the Assessing Officer had identified the Assessee\nas a beneficiary of accommodation entries taken by the Assessee in\nrespect of sale of 44200 shares of KGN Enterprises. Admittedly, in\naggregate 44,200 share of KGN Enterprises were sold by the\nAssessee during the previous year(s) relevant to Assessment Years

M/S. STEECON INFRASTRUCTURE ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

34 for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere 22 M.s Steecon Infrastructures procedural requirement. The service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under section

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings on incorrect understanding of\nfacts. We note that the Assessing Officer had identified the Assessee\nas a beneficiary of accommodation entries taken by the Assessee in\nrespect of sale of 44200 shares of KGN Enterprises. Admittedly, in\naggregate 44,200 share of KGN Enterprises were sold by the\nAssessee during the previous year(s) relevant to Assessment Years

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 159 is reproduced as under: “Legal representatives. Legal representatives. 33 159. (1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay (1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay (1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum 34 which the deceased would have been

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

section 10(34) was also\nbrought to tax. Consequential interest was levied and penalty\nproceedings were initiated.\n2.5. Aggrieved by the reassessment

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

34 assailing validity of the reassessment assailing validity of the reassessment and grounds on merit and grounds on merit. 6. Addressing the ground challenging validity of reassessment, Addressing the ground challenging validity of reassessment, Addressing the ground challenging validity of reassessment, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that issue of claim of he Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

34)\n10(23FB)\n4. The case of the assessee was selected under complete scrutiny\nthrough CASS and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer\nunder section 143(3) on 30.12.2018 after due enquiry and accepting\nthe returned income.\n5. Subsequently, Assessee's case was reopened by issuance of notice\nu/s. 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. It was brought

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

reassessment relevant year. On this premise, it was argued that the r relevant year. On this premise, it was argued that the r order was unsustainable in law, and consequently the order passed order was unsustainable in law, and consequently the order passed order was unsustainable in law, and consequently the order passed under section 263 of the Act also

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered during the course of the search proceedings material gathered during the course of the search proceedings material gathered during the course of the search proceedings establishes something contrary to it. If there is nothing on record to establishes something contrary to it. If there is nothing on record to establishes

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

reassess such income or recompute the loss\nor depreciation allowance or any other, allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2018-19\nand I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from service of this notice, a return in the\nprescribed form of the Assessment Year 2018-19.\n3.\nThis notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

reassessment as\nprescribed in sub-section (2) of section\n150 of the Act limitation provided\nunder section 149 of the Act has to be\ncounted from the end of relevant\n assessment year till date of order which\nis subject matter of appeal wherein\ndirections were passed.\"\nV. THE TRIBUNAL DO NOT HAVE POWER TO GIVE ANY FINDING OR\nDIRECTION

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

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non- \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section