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. 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

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

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

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

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

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- \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827

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

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

reassessment completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2023, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs.4,30,00,000/- holding that the same was in the nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenditure incurred by the assessee, which is not allowable. 4. On further appeal

GALDERMA INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT - 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. Acit-9(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Nestle Skin Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Health India Pvt. Ltd.), Road, Lotus Corporate Park, D Wing, Mumbai-400020. Unit 801 & 802, Graham Firth Steel Compound, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aacg 8660 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-1(3)(1), M/S Galderma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, (Previously Known As M/S Mestle Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Skin Health India Pvt. Ltd.), Road, Lotus Corporate Park, ‘D’ Wing, Mumbai-400020. Unit 801 & 802, Graham Firth Steel Compound, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aacg 8660 M Appellant Respondent

Section 37(1) will not be applicable in 7(1) will not be applicable in respect to payments of Rs. 97,93,996/ respect to payments of Rs. 97,93,996/-. Keeping in view . Keeping in view the facts of the case, expenditure for an amount of the facts of the case, expenditure for an amount of the facts

DCIT 27(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. GANGA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shripavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit 27(1) R No.406, 4Th Floor, Tower M/S Ganga Developers Plot No. 219, Alal Asia, No.6, 11Th Road, Chembur, Vashi Railway Stn Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaafg 8230 C Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022

reassessment proceedings so initiated to give effect to orders on appeal, revision or reference will not be subject to a time limit, the proceedings likewise initiated under section 297(2)(d)(i) read with section 148 will also not be subject to any limitations save to the extent mentioned in section 150(2)….. ….. 11. We would like to add that