DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

reassessment was beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer rather than the been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer rather than the been issued by the Faceless

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

reassessment was beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have beyond four years, and that notice under section 148 should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer rather than the been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer rather than the been issued by the Faceless

M/S. STEECON INFRASTRUCTURE ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment was not challenged but the contention urged was that while section 44 might permit the reassessment, it did not permit

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings on incorrect understanding of\nfacts. We note that the Assessing Officer had identified the Assessee\nas a beneficiary of accommodation entries taken by the Assessee in\nrespect of sale of 44200 shares of KGN Enterprises. Admittedly, in\naggregate 44,200 share of KGN Enterprises were sold by the\nAssessee during the previous year(s) relevant to Assessment Years

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

44,086/-. The assessment under section . The assessment under section 143(3) of the Income 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was completed on tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was completed on 12.03.2014 determining total income at ₹2,93,67,810/ 12.03.2014 determining total income at 2,93,67,810/-. 4.1 Subsequently, information was received from

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings on incorrect understanding of\nfacts. We note that the Assessing Officer had identified the Assessee\nas a beneficiary of accommodation entries taken by the Assessee in\nrespect of sale of 44200 shares of KGN Enterprises. Admittedly, in\naggregate 44,200 share of KGN Enterprises were sold by the\nAssessee during the previous year(s) relevant to Assessment Years

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

44,52,52,130/- under\nnormal provisions of the Act and Book Profit under Section 115JB\nof the Act were determined at INR.1,70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed

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

44,52,52,130/- under\nnormal provisions of the Act and Book Profit under Section 115JB\nof the Act were determined at INR.1,70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed

ACIT CIR. 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order was without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law, since sanction obtained under section 151 was not provided to the appellant, much less within limitation prescribed in section 149 of the Act.‖ 3.1. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in its appeal:- ―1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

44,52,52,130/- under\nnormal provisions of the Act and Book Profit under Section 115JB\nof the Act were determined at INR.1,70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed

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)

44,52,52,130/- under\nnormal provisions of the Act and Book Profit under Section 115JB\nof the Act were determined at INR.1,70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed

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 ()

44,00,614/- under section 115JB of the Act. The assessing officer passed a draft assessment order in case of the assessee under section 144C(1) of the Act which was finalized in pursuance to the directions learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), vide assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

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

44,52,52,130/- under \nnormal provisions of the Act and Book Profit under Section 115JB \nof the Act were determined at INR.1,70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter, \nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section \n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under \nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter \ndated 17/04/2017, filed

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

44,52,52,130/- under\nnormal provisions of the Act and Book Profit under Section 115JB\nof the Act were determined at INR.1,70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter,\nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section\n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under\nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter\ndated 17/04/2017, filed

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

44,52,52,130/- under \nnormal provisions of the Act and Book Profit under Section 115JB \nof the Act were determined at INR.1,70,14,98,778/-. Thereafter, \nreassessment proceedings were again initiated under Section \n147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 31/03/2017, under \nSection 148 of the Act. In response the Assessee, vide letter \ndated 17/04/2017, filed

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

reassess the total income but there is a cap on the scope of additions in such assessment, being the items of income 'unearthed during the search'. In other words, the determination of 'total income' in respect of the assessment years for which the assessments are already completed on the date of search, shall not be influenced by the items

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

44 taxmann.com 304(Bombay). The Assessing Officer only has power taxmann.com 304(Bombay). The Assessing Officer only has power taxmann.com 304(Bombay). The Assessing Officer only has power to reassess and not review. to reassess and not review. 2) Deduction claimed u/s 80G fully allowable on merits 2) Deduction claimed u/s 80G fully allowable on merits 2) Deduction claimed

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

reassessment proceedings. Explanation-1 to section 147 of the Act supports my view. Thus, the first ground raised by the assessee is having no merit, consequently, dismissed. 3. So far as, the issue with respect to confirmation of addition to the extent of 6.5% of the alleged bogus purchases as against the addition @12.5% made by the Ld. Assessing Officer