ARIES AGRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Aries Agro Ltd Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Plot No. 24, Aries House 460, Aaykar Bhawan Deonar, Govandi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 043 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca5035G Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 35D (3) of the Act, the total expenses eligible for deduction u/s 35D @5% of capital employed, ie, Rs. 19,16,27,690/-, therefore, comes to Rs. 95,81,384/-. The amount eligible for deduction u/s 35D during the year at 1/5th of Rs.95,81,384/- is Rs. 19,16,276/- as against Rs.1,00,12,966/- claimed

IDBI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment order passed under section 147/143(3) have become academic. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 3424/Mum/2018 by assessee (AY 2011-12). 9. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals:– IDBI Bank Ltd (AY’s 2008-09, 2011-12 to 2013-14) (1) Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A: 1.1 The learned

YES BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

section 35D and stated that Assessee Company is engaged in finance business and is not an industrial undertaking. Thus, entire deduction claimed by banking company u/s. 35D is not in order. Audit scrutiny of attachment IV of 3CD audit report revealed that assessee had claimed following expenditure for deduction u/s.35D. i) Preliminary & Pre-incorporation expenses - Rs.5677691/- ii) Share issue expenses

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE 1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SAUDELA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 10. Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income-Tax Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, it is only the assessment/reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date of conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under Section 132A of the Act stand

PELICAN CREDITS & SCURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed on jurisdictional issue

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

35D of the Act in respect of raising of this equity shares and consequently raising of share capital by the company during the year. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has submitted the following documents during the original assessment proceedings: - Sr. Particulars of Documents submitted ITAs No. 2413/Mum/2017 No. 1. Details of shares allotted giving names

ACIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. K. SERA SERA PRODUCTIONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, so far as the appeal of the assessee is concerned, the same stands allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the Assessing

KSS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI

In the result, so far as the appeal of the assessee is concerned, the same stands allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the Assessing

K SERA SERA PRODUCTIONS LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS GARNET PAPER MILLS LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, so far as the appeal of the assessee is concerned, the same stands allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the Assessing

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment was initiated on the basis of information and inference based on revenue audit objection which constituted valid reasons to believe under section 147 of the Act?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CITA) has erred in relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in GKN Sinter Metals

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

35D of the Act. The Assessee submits that the A.O. had before passing the assessment order, called for explanation from the assessee. The same was provided by the assessee. Only because the Commissioner thought that other view is a better view, would not enable CIT to exercise power u/s. 263 of the Act. In the light of the above

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Apart from the aforesaid jurisdictional ground, the assessee has also challenged the assessment order passed manually on 05/12/2019 without mentioning the Document Identification Number (“DIN”) in terms of the CBDT Circular No.19 of 2019 dated 14/08/2019. As the aforesaid issue raised by the assessee vide its cross objection is the jurisdictional issue

SUPREME CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O.3(3)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6933/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Supreme Capital Management Ltd. Income Tax Officer 3(3)(4) बनाम/ 612, Raheja Chambers Aaykar Bhavan 231, Nariman Point M.K.Road Vs. Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-7243-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

reassessment proceedings were rightly invoked by Ld. AO. Therefore, the legal ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 6. Proceeding further on merits, we find that the expenditure claimed by the assessee mainly consist of depreciation, preliminary expenses and certain other expenses. We agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that the depreciation allowance is an statutory allowance

KARNATAKA STRIPS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CEN CIR-33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

35D of the Act. In so far as, legal issue raised by the assessee challenging validity of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no merit in the contention of the 5 M/s. Karnataka Strips Ltd. assessee that such satisfaction should have been recorded in the cases searched

KARNATAKA STRIPS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CEN CIR-33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

35D of the Act. In so far as, legal issue raised by the assessee challenging validity of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no merit in the contention of the 5 M/s. Karnataka Strips Ltd. assessee that such satisfaction should have been recorded in the cases searched

KARNATAKA STRIPS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CEN CIR-33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

35D of the Act. In so far as, legal issue raised by the assessee challenging validity of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no merit in the contention of the 5 M/s. Karnataka Strips Ltd. assessee that such satisfaction should have been recorded in the cases searched

KARNATAKA STRIPS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CEN CIR-33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

35D of the Act. In so far as, legal issue raised by the assessee challenging validity of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no merit in the contention of the 5 M/s. Karnataka Strips Ltd. assessee that such satisfaction should have been recorded in the cases searched

KARNATAKA STRIPS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CEN CIR-33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2003-04 to

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

35D of the Act. In so far as, legal issue raised by the assessee challenging validity of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no merit in the contention of the 5 M/s. Karnataka Strips Ltd. assessee that such satisfaction should have been recorded in the cases searched

J.V GOKAL SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

section 35D of the Act of expenditure incurred on due diligence. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND 1,2&3: 3 JV Gokal Securities pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO Ground 4: The appellant prays that expenditure on due diligence be added to the cost of acquisition of investment for the purposes of computing capital gains as per the provisions

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

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

35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re-organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular is extracted below: “56.1 The business and economic environment of the country