YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

43B but upheld the disallowance of Rs.9,75,96,266/- under Section 36(1)(va), as well as the interest levied under Section 234C. Being dissatisfied with the order, both the assessee and the revenue have filed appeals before us. ITA 1093/Mum/2025 (Assessee’s Appeal) 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed a Paper Book comprising pages

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the\nliability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning\non or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\nRule 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of\nthe assessee of a previous

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the\nliability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning\non or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\nRule 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of\nthe assessee of a previous

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

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

43B of the Act as per the report of the auditor. It is also a fact on record that the assessing officer has ultimately completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by disallowing the amount of Rs.68,62,780/-, i.e. the income which has escaped assessment as per the reasons recorded. Neither the reasons recorded

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

ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN vs. RICH & ROYAL, KALYAN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

43B of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The first issue that came up for our consideration is addition made by the AO towards unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act. The AO made addition towards unsecured loans alongwith interest thereon received from Josh Trading Company

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

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 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. TOSCANO INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD, THANE

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6577 & 6578/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Toscano Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax 10(3) Ground Floor, Ashar I.T. Room No. 451 बनाम/ Park Road No. 16Z Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate M.K.Road Near Agricultural Bus Stop Mumbai -400 020 Thane(W) – 400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7263-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6849 & 6850/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Toscano Infrastructure Income Tax 10(3) Private Limited Room No. 451 Ground Floor, Ashar I.T. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Park Road No. 16Z Vs. M.K.Road Wagle Industrial Estate Mumbai -400 020 Near Agricultural Bus Stop Thane(W) – 400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7263-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 18/11/2013 wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.10,09,83,380/- under normal provisions after addition of certain bogus purchases for Rs.6,72,98,528/- as against income of Rs.3,36,84,850/- determined in the original assessment

TOSCANO INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT 10-(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6577 & 6578/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Toscano Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax 10(3) Ground Floor, Ashar I.T. Room No. 451 बनाम/ Park Road No. 16Z Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate M.K.Road Near Agricultural Bus Stop Mumbai -400 020 Thane(W) – 400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7263-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6849 & 6850/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Toscano Infrastructure Income Tax 10(3) Private Limited Room No. 451 Ground Floor, Ashar I.T. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Park Road No. 16Z Vs. M.K.Road Wagle Industrial Estate Mumbai -400 020 Near Agricultural Bus Stop Thane(W) – 400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7263-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 18/11/2013 wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.10,09,83,380/- under normal provisions after addition of certain bogus purchases for Rs.6,72,98,528/- as against income of Rs.3,36,84,850/- determined in the original assessment

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. TOSCANO INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD, THANE

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6577 & 6578/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Toscano Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax 10(3) Ground Floor, Ashar I.T. Room No. 451 बनाम/ Park Road No. 16Z Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate M.K.Road Near Agricultural Bus Stop Mumbai -400 020 Thane(W) – 400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7263-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6849 & 6850/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Toscano Infrastructure Income Tax 10(3) Private Limited Room No. 451 Ground Floor, Ashar I.T. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Park Road No. 16Z Vs. M.K.Road Wagle Industrial Estate Mumbai -400 020 Near Agricultural Bus Stop Thane(W) – 400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7263-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 18/11/2013 wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.10,09,83,380/- under normal provisions after addition of certain bogus purchases for Rs.6,72,98,528/- as against income of Rs.3,36,84,850/- determined in the original assessment

TOSCANO INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT 10-(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6577 & 6578/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Toscano Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax 10(3) Ground Floor, Ashar I.T. Room No. 451 बनाम/ Park Road No. 16Z Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate M.K.Road Near Agricultural Bus Stop Mumbai -400 020 Thane(W) – 400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7263-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6849 & 6850/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Toscano Infrastructure Income Tax 10(3) Private Limited Room No. 451 Ground Floor, Ashar I.T. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Park Road No. 16Z Vs. M.K.Road Wagle Industrial Estate Mumbai -400 020 Near Agricultural Bus Stop Thane(W) – 400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7263-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 18/11/2013 wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.10,09,83,380/- under normal provisions after addition of certain bogus purchases for Rs.6,72,98,528/- as against income of Rs.3,36,84,850/- determined in the original assessment

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

sections 30 to 43A and,\ntherefore, unless there was a specific\nprohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be\njustified in. adding back the amount under\nrule 5(a), Therefore, even if the debit for\namortization is considered as an\nexpenditure, there is no specific prohibition\nagainst allowing such an expenditure\nunder the provisions of sections

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

43B of the Act (which was added back in\nthe computation of income), in the event the deduction claimed in the successor company (on\naccount of reversal thereof) is not allowed in the assessment of that Company.”\n3. The revenue has taken following grounds:\n“i. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case