ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. KESHAV & COMPANY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

reassessment order is bad in law and should have been quashed; Computation of capital gain under section 45(4) of the Act 2 . erred in confirming the Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’) on retirement of partner from the Appellant firm to the extent of Rs.2,56,41

ITO WARD-4(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASHIK WOLLEN MILLS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of revenue is allowed in terms indicated here

reassessment of the assessment year 1994-95, but when faced with the order of the BIFR exempting operation of section 41(1) of the Act, proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, for the same amount of waiver under the same order he made additions in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94, only on the basis of book

SYSCOM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reassessment u/s. 263: Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Max India Ltd. [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC)/[2007] 295ITR 282 (SC)/[2007] 213 CTR 266 (SC) 6 I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 M/s Syscom Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay)/[1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)/[1993] 114 CTR 81 (Bombay High

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

DEEPAK KAKUBHAI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

reassess taking\ninto consideration the other material in respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition\ncan be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search under Section\n132 or requisition under Section 132-A of the 1961 Act.”\n42. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High

NAVAJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

reassessments (147), review (263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? Page 27 of 47 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name

ICICI BANK LTD. vs. DCIT RANGE 3(1),

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

41(4A) for the reason that the condition for maintaining special reserve is an additional condition inserted by the amendment in order to avail of the deduction from AY 1998-99 onwards. The result of the amendment is to restrict the benefit granted by the said section. Such a restriction cannot be read into the said section as it existed

DCIT RG. 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

41(4A) for the reason that the condition for maintaining special reserve is an additional condition inserted by the amendment in order to avail of the deduction from AY 1998-99 onwards. The result of the amendment is to restrict the benefit granted by the said section. Such a restriction cannot be read into the said section as it existed

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessments (147), review (263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

reassessments (147), review (263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose

JAMSETJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessments (147), review (263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessments (147), review (263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessments (147), review (263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose