ACIT 23-1, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings but deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by accepting Assessee‟s claim for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act and Section 10(35

ACIT-231, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings but deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by accepting Assessee‟s claim for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act and Section 10(35

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground

JAYANT AGRO-ORGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for assessme...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 147 of the Act. The Appellant had also filed a rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant

JAYANT AGRO- ORGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for assessme...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 147 of the Act. The Appellant had also filed a rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant

JAYANT AGRO- ORGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for assessme...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 147 of the Act. The Appellant had also filed a rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for assessme...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 147 of the Act. The Appellant had also filed a rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for assessme...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 147 of the Act. The Appellant had also filed a rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for assessme...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 147 of the Act. The Appellant had also filed a rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income rectification application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from (Appeals) and the appellant

H.B. GUM INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 20.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13\nwherein disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act of Rs.35 lakh was confirmed\nand appeal was dismissed.\n2. The brief facts as culled out from proceedings before the lower\nauthorities are that the appellant is a private

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-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

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-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

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

reassessment proceedings in the case of the Assessee. In\nthe present case the return of income was filed by the Assessee for\nthe Assessment Year 2012-2013 was processed under Section\n143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed on the\nAssessee under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, it was\nirrelevant whether the income

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 ()

reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 20.12.2018 in the name of the deceased assessee through legal on 20.12.2018 in the name of the deceased assessee through legal on 20.12.2018 in the name of the deceased assessee through legal representative, retaining the PAN o representative, retaining the PAN of the deceased. f the deceased. The Assessing Officer

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 order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2.\nThe CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8.\nWe have heard the both the sides

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

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 order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides