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 itself is void, the grounds raised on merits grounds raised on merits—including the eligibility of deduction including the eligibility of deduction under section 80G for donations made from CSR allocations—are under section 80G for donations made from CSR allocations under section 80G for donations made from CSR allocations rendered academic and are t rendered academic

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

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

section 139(5) of the Act. The reassessment was thereafter completed on 25.02.2022, wherein The reassessment was thereafter completed on 25.02.2022, wherein

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

5) of section 153 section 153 to the date on which the refund is granted:] to the date on which the refund is granted:] 4[Provided [Provided [Provided that that that where where where proceedings proceedings proceedings for for for assessment assessment assessment or or or reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

5) of section 153 section 153 to the date on which the refund is granted:] to the date on which the refund is granted:] 4[Provided [Provided [Provided that that that where where where proceedings proceedings proceedings for for for assessment assessment assessment or or or reassessment

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

5) of section 153 section 153 to the date on which the refund is granted:] to the date on which the refund is granted:] 4[Provided [Provided [Provided that that that where where where proceedings proceedings proceedings for for for assessment assessment assessment or or or reassessment

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

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

RITESH SINGH ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TREND ELECTRONICS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

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

5) of the IBC. 4.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently drawn a clear distinction between determination of dues and and enforcement distinction between or recovery thereof or recovery thereof. While the IBC overrides the Income . While

NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 9(1) of the Act, especially in view of assessee‟s Indian connection. Neither at the reassessment stage nor at the appellate stage, has the assessee been able to produce satisfactory details sufficiency of assessee‟s additional evidence filed during appellate proceedings, adds weight to the specific findings given and lacunae pointed out in para supra due to which

NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 9(1) of the Act, especially in view of assessee‟s Indian connection. Neither at the reassessment stage nor at the appellate stage, has the assessee been able to produce satisfactory details sufficiency of assessee‟s additional evidence filed during appellate proceedings, adds weight to the specific findings given and lacunae pointed out in para supra due to which

JAWAHARLAL GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 9(1) of the Act, especially in view of assessee‟s Indian connection. Neither at the reassessment stage nor at the appellate stage, has the assessee been able to produce satisfactory details sufficiency of assessee‟s additional evidence filed during appellate proceedings, adds weight to the specific findings given and lacunae pointed out in para supra due to which

PARTAB GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 9(1) of the Act, especially in view of assessee‟s Indian connection. Neither at the reassessment stage nor at the appellate stage, has the assessee been able to produce satisfactory details sufficiency of assessee‟s additional evidence filed during appellate proceedings, adds weight to the specific findings given and lacunae pointed out in para supra due to which

PARTAB GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of I.T. Act 1961 on 30-03-2015 wherein the peak amount as appearing in the Base Note of the assessee's HSBC account being USD 25,28,927 as on March, 2006 translating to Rs.11,28,15,433/- (@Rs.44.61 per USD) was brought to tax as income received or deemed to be received

CHANDAN RALTORS P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

5) of the Act.\nFurther, the section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 has made it clear that\nthe company shall not be deemed as dissolved or certificate of\nincorporation shall be continued for the purpose of discharge of the\nliabilities or obligation of the Company. Since responding to the notice\nissued by the Income-tax Department is a statutory

SHAM GULABRAI TULSYANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of I.T. Act 1961 on 30-03-2015 wherein the peak amount as appearing in the Base Note of the assessee's HSBC account being USD 25,28,927 as on March, 2006 translating to Rs.11,28,15,433/- (@Rs.44.61 per USD) was brought to tax as income received or deemed to be received

SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment cannot be examined in proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. It is well- proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect