SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

reassessment order:\n6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the mistake on the part of the\nLd. AO in quoting section 56(2)(viib) instead of 56(2)(viia

PANKAJ DHANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-22(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

reassessment order passed under\nsection 147 read with section 144B of The Income Tax Act, 1961\n(The Act) on 6/11/2023 by the National Faceless Assessment\nCentre (the learned AO) dated 6/11/2023, was dismissed.\n2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before\nus raising following grounds.\n1.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Section 14A(2) of the Act, read\n40\nITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others\nM/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.\nwith Rule 8D of the Rules, before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to\nrecord satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance\nunder Section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

section 14A of the Act. For instance, if the total cost\nincurred for conducting the Board meeting is Rs. 10 lakhs and out of the total 20 agendas\nin the Board meeting, 5 agendas pertains to subsidiary associate and joint venture\ncompanies, 1/4th i.e. (5/20) cost of the Board meeting viz., Rs. 2.5 lakhs would be\nattributed as amount

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. AACHMAN VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

viia) of the Act are not applicable. Addressing the additional ground, the ld. CIT(A) observed that no incriminating material regarding the purchase of shares by the assessee was found during the course of search and there is no documentary evidence found during the search which indicate that the assessee has paid in cash for acquiring these shares below

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RISING STAR INVESTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

56(2)(viia). Ld. Assessing Officer has taken cognizance of the submissions made by the assessee for the request for reference to DVO. In this respect, he noted that since the assessee has made such a request at the fag end of the assessment proceedings, owing to the limited time available for completing the assessment proceedings, he proceeded to complete

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

viia) of the act, although, the opening balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years

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

viia) of the act, although, the opening balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years