INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE vs. ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA, JOGESHWARI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer-10(2)(3) V. Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 142/48, Ghaswala Estate Room No-212, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Jogeshwari(W) M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aalpg9087A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri S.M. Makhija & : Ms. Manisha Ghind Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

section 45(3) was applicable in respect of such transfer made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. It was further held that the revaluation figure recorded in the books of accounts in the firm M/s. Salapuria Soft Zone as on March 31, 2008 was to be deemed as full value of consideration received or accruing

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

3) r.w.s. 147 for the assessment year 2006- 07. 2. In the assessee’s appeal, following grounds have been raised:- That the learned CIT (A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law has:- “Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act 1 . erred in upholding the reopening of assessment under section

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

3) r.w.s. 147 for the assessment year 2006- 07. 2. In the assessee’s appeal, following grounds have been raised:- That the learned CIT (A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law has:- “Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act 1 . erred in upholding the reopening of assessment under section

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)

reassessment proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, in the case before us, the Assessing Officer had not scrutinized the issue of deductibility of payments made to auto dealers under Section 37 of the Act (read with Explanation 1 thereto) during the regular scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of the Assessing Officer forming ‘another view

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)

reassessment proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, in the case before us, the Assessing Officer had not scrutinized the issue of deductibility of payments made to auto dealers under Section 37 of the Act (read with Explanation 1 thereto) during the regular scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of the Assessing Officer forming ‘another view

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)

reassessment proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, in the case before us, the Assessing Officer had not scrutinized the issue of deductibility of payments made to auto dealers under Section 37 of the Act (read with Explanation 1 thereto) during the regular scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of the Assessing Officer forming ‘another view

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)

reassessment proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, in the case before us, the Assessing Officer had not scrutinized the issue of deductibility of payments made to auto dealers under Section 37 of the Act (read with Explanation 1 thereto) during the regular scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of the Assessing Officer forming ‘another view

METROPOLITAN STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

section 263 of the Act needs to be quashed. 13. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the original assessment u/s. 143(3) in this case was done on 17.1.2013 and the special audit was done on 23.09.2014. That the items upon which the ld. CIT has exercised his jurisdiction u/s. 263 were not part of the original assessment

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

reassessments finalized for finalized for the the the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 1020, 1019, 1550 & 1548/M/2018 & 1970/M/2022 Income Income-tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

reassessments finalized for finalized for the the the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 1020, 1019, 1550 & 1548/M/2018 & 1970/M/2022 Income Income-tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

45,836 was excluded from the total business income computed at Rs.7863,19,95,380 and the balance of Rs.5806,27,49,544 was considered as business income from long term finance eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii). 3.2 As per the show cause notice your Honour's first observation is that the lease income to be reduced

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

45,356/- should have been offered for taxation should have been offered for taxation and against which the bank claims full TDS amount. against which the bank claims full TDS amount. against which the bank claims full TDS amount. However, the assessee bank has claimed full TDS amount in However, the assessee bank has claimed full TDS amount in However

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

45,356/- should have been offered for taxation should have been offered for taxation and against which the bank claims full TDS amount. against which the bank claims full TDS amount. against which the bank claims full TDS amount. However, the assessee bank has claimed full TDS amount in However, the assessee bank has claimed full TDS amount in However

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing the impugned orders dated 30 July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said provisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 2. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing the impugned orders dated 30 July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said provisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 2. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing the impugned orders dated 30 July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said provisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 2. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment unless some incriminating material concerning those issues were found during the course of search. Otherwise, in the concluded assessments which have been reopened u/s 153A, the assessing officer should restrict himself with the additions arising out of the incriminating materials found during the course of search." 20.21 In the case of Viraj Forgings Ltd. vs. DOT [ITA No. 1948/M/2008

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section