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

section 37(1) of the Act.\n2.3. During the reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee\nsubmitted that it was not engaged in the business

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

Section 37\n==End of OCR for page 10==\nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car\ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material,\nthe Assessing Officer initiate reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated on\nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax\n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was\nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of\nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car\ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement\nof expenses

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated on \nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax \n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was \nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of \nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car \ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement \nof expenses

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 proceedings were initiated on\nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax\n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was\nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of\nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car\ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement\nof expenses

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated on\nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax\n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was\nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of\nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car\ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement\nof expenses

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 proceedings were initiated on\nthe basis of information received from Director of Income Tax\n(Inv.), Chennai according which, inter-alia, the Assessee was\nmaking payment to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of\nthe Insurance Act, 1938. Commission was being paid to the car\ndealers in the grab of making payments towards reimbursement\nof expenses

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

section 37(1) of the Act.\n2.3. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee\nsubmitted that it was not engaged in the business

ACIT 3 3 1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-\nobjection of the assessee are dismissed

reassessment completed u/s\n147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2023, the Assessing Officer\nmade disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act\namounting to Rs.4,30,00,000/- holding that the same was in the\nnature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenditure incurred\nby the assessee, which is not allowable.\n4.\nOn further appeal

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

section 37(1) of the Act.\n2.3. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee\nsubmitted that it was not engaged in the business

ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT,CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

37 of the Act. 61. Accordingly, the Appellant wishes to humbly submit that as none of the conditions required to invoke proceedings under section 263 of the Act are satisfied, we request your Honour’s to quash the order dated 31 March 2021 passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act.” 8. On the other hand

ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

37 of the Act. 61. Accordingly, the Appellant wishes to humbly submit that as none of the conditions required to invoke proceedings under section 263 of the Act are satisfied, we request your Honour’s to quash the order dated 31 March 2021 passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act.” 8. On the other hand

M/S. RAVI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-17, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

reassessment proceedings. Thus, he 5 A.Y. 2010-11 submitted, there being no error in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, proceeding under section 263 of the Act would not lie. He submitted, since the learned PCIT could not have revised original assessment order passed under section

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 147 of the Act. 37. Having noted as above, we find that in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)[18-01-2010], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 147 of the Act. 37. Having noted as above, we find that in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)[18-01-2010], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 147 of the Act. 37. Having noted as above, we find that in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)[18-01-2010], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 147 of the Act. 37. Having noted as above, we find that in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)[18-01-2010], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

37 taxmann.com 218 (Del.) 7. CIT Vs. Shriram Engg. Construction Co. Ltd., [201 1] 330 ITR 568 (Mad.) 8. L.G.Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.) 5 ITA 640/Mum/2021 9. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi, dated 14.05.2020 10. Malabar Industrial