DHAVAL EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 5(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dhaval Exim Pvt. Ltd., Acit, 5(1)(2), 117-A, 117-A, Panchratna Bldg., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mama Parmanand Marg, Opera Maharishi Karve Road, House, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aadcd 0472 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr : 04/04/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2024

48,260/-) and also the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has (Appeals) has erred in confirming the same. erred in confirming the same. 2. During the course of hearing, the assessee raising following the course of hearing, the assessee raising following the course of hearing, the assessee raising following additional ground: Additional three more ground of appeals: Additional three more ground

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an „associated enterprises‟, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an „associated enterprises‟, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an ‘associated enterprises’, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, the fundamental issue in this appeal deals with the question as to whether the assessee can be said to be an ‘associated enterprises’, within meanings assigned under section 92A, of Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, a Singapore based entity, and, in the event of this issue being held in favour of the assessee, all other issues will be rendered

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

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

2) of the Act, the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Section 292BB, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.3008 is not applicable to the proceedings for the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09. We are also of the opinion that Section 292BB

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

2) of the Act, the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Section 292BB, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.3008 is not applicable to the proceedings for the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09. We are also of the opinion that Section 292BB

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

2) of the Act, the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Section 292BB, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.3008 is not applicable to the proceedings for the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09. We are also of the opinion that Section 292BB

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 3.4. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers

VIDYAVIHAR CONTAINERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3Rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacn0291R Appellant Respondent

48,929/- 2 M/s. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 29.11.2007 for A.Y. 2005- 06, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-22, Mumbai challenging the aforesaid three disallowances (supra), non allowance of carry forward of business loss of earlier years and the existence of/and the validity of the notice issued under section

RAMESH SALECHA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

2) of the Act, the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Section 292BB, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.3008 is not applicable to the proceedings for the assessment year 2006- 07, 2007-08, 2008-09. We are also of the opinion that Section 292BB

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

Section 150, which restricted the applicability of the\nprovision of Sec. 150 in a case where 6 years have already\nlapsed when appeal order was passed. Since in the present\ncase the appeal order for 2007-08 & 2007-08 was admittedly\npassed on 19.04.2018, but till that time 6 years from the end\nof A.Y 2003-04 had already lapsed

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

reassessment u/s 148 for the AY 2017-18 to bring to tax 18 to bring to tax alleged wrongful deduction u/s 80G of Rs. 4,86,48,800/ alleged wrongful deduction u/s 80G of Rs. 4,86,48,800/ alleged wrongful deduction u/s 80G of Rs. 4,86,48,800/- claimed by the Appellant Company since the said donations were

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

reassessment proceedings, applied section 2(22)(e) of the Act on the funds 21 M/s Saturn Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. acquired by the assessee from SCCPL. The assessee vide letter dated 11/12/2013 explained that the provision of the deem dividend is not attracted and further vide letter dated 30/01/2014 asserted that the trust is not a private limited company therefore

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

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), 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

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

reassessment contrary to the scheme which required automated allocation. The present case stands on a different footing. Here, the notice under section 148 is not under challenge. The notice under section 143(2), which is subsequent to filing of return, was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit under section 144B

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section