DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the amortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to MMRDA. Both the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the amortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to MMRDA. Both the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 36(1) (viia), the deduction is to be computed before making deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA of the Act. As such 5% of Rs.143,07,03,231/- was also required to be taken in to account while computing the deduction u/s.36(1) (viia). However, this was not done and therefore the same has resulted in underassessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, DCIT CIRCLE , AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

1)(vii), (viia), and (viii). The assessment was initially completed under Section 143(3). Subsequently, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, alleging an incorrect method of computation for deductions claimed under Section 36

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA CAPITAL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO TATA CLEANTECH CAPITAL LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

36(1)(viii). 5.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee reiterated its stance on the legality of the reassessment which is on account of change of opinion resulting into review of the assessment by the Ld. Assessing Officer which is not permissible within the provisions of section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the Act shall abate. In the present case before us, however, though the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A would not apply

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the Act shall abate. In the present case before us, however, though the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A would not apply

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into the merits of the additions or other grounds raised by the assessee. It is well settled that once

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into the merits of the additions or other grounds raised by the assessee. It is well settled that once

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into the merits of the additions or other grounds raised by the assessee. It is well settled that once

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into the merits of the additions or other grounds raised by the assessee. It is well settled that once

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

1), Mumbai must fall with it. A superstructure built upon a non-existent foundation is destined to collapse. 23. In view of our findings that the reassessment proceedings are fundamentally tainted by want of jurisdiction, we see no necessity to venture into the merits of the additions or other grounds raised by the assessee. It is well settled that once