GRAMEEN IMPACT INVESTMENT INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL -E ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Grameen Impact Investments India National-E-Assessment Pvt. Ltd., Centre, 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. New Delhi-110 001. Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ars : Revenue By Mr. Satyapal Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/12/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grameen Impact Investments India Dy. Cit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, Aayakar 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra Mumbai-400050. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent

viia) amounting to and disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to rs.2,98,20,988/-, has only 40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to rs.2,98,20,988/ 40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to rs.2,98,20,988/ Grameen Impact Investments India Pvt. Ltd. Grameen Impact Investments India

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

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

NAVRATAN MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

reassessment proceedings were initiated. The AO added an amount under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act on account of purchasing

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

VORA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. A C I T - 2(3((1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 274, Perin Nariman, St. Bazar Gate M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1975E Appellant Respondent

56(2)(viia) of the Act. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares and derivatives. The first issue relates to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee received dividend income of Rs.31,35,460/- and claimed the same as exempt. The assessee did not disallow any expenditure in terms

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

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

viia) and in respect of foreign exchange rate difference. Neither in the first order of reassessment dated 22 February 2000 nor in the second order of reassessment dated 26 March 2002 were these aspects determined. In other words on the aforesaid three issues, the original order of assessment dated 10 March 1999 passed under Section 143(3) continued to hold

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