TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

35. On the other hand, Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the Authorities below. 36. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Ld.CIT(A) had considered the submissions of the assessee and taking note of the fact that the assessee himself in his revised return of income offered additional income based

ACIT, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

Appeal is allowed

35,030/-. The aforesaid return was processed and intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 21.09.2018. No regular assessment was framed on the Appellant as the case of the Appellant was not selected for scrutiny. 4. Subsequently, search and seizure action was conducted in the M/s Viraj Profiles Ltd. on 13.07.2017 invoices raised by the Appellant