SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceeding, we find that i proceeding, we find that in the case assessment has been reopened n the case assessment has been reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant beyond the period of four years from the end of th beyond the period of four years from the end of th assessment year

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceeding, we find that i proceeding, we find that in the case assessment has been reopened n the case assessment has been reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant beyond the period of four years from the end of th beyond the period of four years from the end of th assessment year

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceeding, we find that i proceeding, we find that in the case assessment has been reopened n the case assessment has been reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant beyond the period of four years from the end of th beyond the period of four years from the end of th assessment year

ITO-26(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceeding, we find that i proceeding, we find that in the case assessment has been reopened n the case assessment has been reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant beyond the period of four years from the end of th beyond the period of four years from the end of th assessment year

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceeding, we find that i proceeding, we find that in the case assessment has been reopened n the case assessment has been reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant beyond the period of four years from the end of th beyond the period of four years from the end of th assessment year

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceeding, we find that i proceeding, we find that in the case assessment has been reopened n the case assessment has been reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant beyond the period of four years from the end of th beyond the period of four years from the end of th assessment year

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

reassessment order passed by ld. A.O. 147 r.w.s.143(3) holding wrongly the said assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That the ld. Principal CIT while setting aside the assessment order has erred in erroneously applying the concept of accrual system of accounting in the case by overlooking the concept of real income theory

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

KESHAV AND COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(2), 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

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

2(22)(a) of the Act in the hands of the members of Shroff family and brought to tax under section 115-O of the Act in the hands of Bloom Packaging and Uniphos International by the CIT(A) was deleted. 20. For submission of ld. Special Counsel that order of Tribunal in case Ultima was based on different fact

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" as an in- built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer". 1. In the aforesaid backdrop, without prejudice, it is also relevant to mention here the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed

AMOHA TRADERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Justice Shri P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2007-08)

reassessment. Therefore, applying the above principles of interpretation and keeping in view the above discussion it has to be held that section 292BB cannot be construed to have retrospective operation and it has to be applied prospectively. 42. Having arrived at the conclusion that section 292BB has no retrospective effect and is to be construed prospectively

MUKAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukund Limited V. Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor M.K. Road 226 Nariman Point New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department By : Shri Ajay K. Ojha

45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between 'issue of notice' and 'service of notice' under the 1961 Act. Section 149 prescribe the period of limitation. It categorically prescribes that no notice under section 149 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides for service of notice as a condition precedent

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

45-46 of the Constitution. As to what is\n'education' in the context of the IT Act, was explained in Sole Trustee, Loka\nShikshana Trust v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)/[1976] 1 SCC 254 in the\nfollowing terms:\n\"5. The sense in which the word \"education\" has been used in section 2(15)\nis the instruction

SAKUN GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has (A.Ys: 2008-09 & 2011-12) M/s. Sukun Gems been made out between 'issue of notice' and 'service of notice' under the 1961 Act. Section 149 prescribe the period of limitation. It categorically prescribes that no notice under section 149 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides

SAKUN GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has (A.Ys: 2008-09 & 2011-12) M/s. Sukun Gems been made out between 'issue of notice' and 'service of notice' under the 1961 Act. Section 149 prescribe the period of limitation. It categorically prescribes that no notice under section 149 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings null and void\n5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not granting an\nopportunity of hearing through videoconference though a request\nhad been made by the appellant, and in stating that a notice had\nbeen issued for videoconferencing on 19.9.2023 but the appellant\ndid not respond to the same\nAs regards denial of exemption under section