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. 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

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

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

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

Section 37\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 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

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.\nassessee\n2.3. During the reassessment proceedings, the\nsubmitted that it was not engaged in the business

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