BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RANGE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

5) of Section 153 provides that where the effect to an order of appellate or revisional authority under varioous sections of the Act is to be given by the Assessing Officer, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

ACIFFT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

5) of Section 153 provides that where the effect to an order of appellate or revisional authority under varioous sections of the Act is to be given by the Assessing Officer, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

5) of Section 153 provides that where the effect to an order of appellate or revisional authority under varioous sections of the Act is to be given by the Assessing Officer, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RANGE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

5) of Section 153 provides that where the effect to an order of appellate or revisional authority under varioous sections of the Act is to be given by the Assessing Officer, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

5) of Section 153 provides that where the effect to an order of appellate or revisional authority under varioous sections of the Act is to be given by the Assessing Officer, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (INT. TAXATION) - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

reassessment proceedings were initiated, inter alia, in view of the information/material gathered during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and assessment order dated 31.03.2005 was passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 1.2. Appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were partly allowed

ADIT (IT)-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

reassessment proceedings were initiated, inter alia, in view of the information/material gathered during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and assessment order dated 31.03.2005 was passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 1.2. Appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were partly allowed

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT IT-3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

reassessment proceedings were initiated, inter alia, in view of the information/material gathered during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and assessment order dated 31.03.2005 was passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 1.2. Appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were partly allowed

DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIPENDU BAPALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

5. The learned AO passed the assessment order, after considering the submissions of the assessee. In the assessment order, the learned AO, has made a strong presumption of the amounts in the HSBC Bank account being undisclosed lying therein being sourced from India. In support of this the AO has relied on the circumstantial evidences to decide the matter

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 ()

reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 20.12.2018 in the name of the deceased assessee through legal on 20.12.2018 in the name of the deceased assessee through legal on 20.12.2018 in the name of the deceased assessee through legal representative, retaining the PAN o representative, retaining the PAN of the deceased. f the deceased. The Assessing Officer

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in Section 115-J that "income of the company as accepted by the assessing officer". In the absence of the same and on the language of Section 115-J, it will have to held that view taken by the tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

section 263 directing set-aside of the reassessment order and for making a fresh assessment is also invalid in law and deserves to be quashed.\n12. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, strongly opposed the jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee, particularly Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 5

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 151(1) of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 8-12-2009 was issued to the assessee company, which was duly served on the assessee company on 9-12-2009. The assessee company filed return of income in pursuance to notice dated 08- 12-2009 issued

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

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

5. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai that the Appellant had taken accommodation entries from two Delhi based entities, namely M/s Shivam Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Sh. Devender Kumar Goel and M/s Kumar Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Sh. Arvind Kumar Goel. Accordingly, the assessment proceedings were initiated and reassessment under Section

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

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