SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

57 & P a g e | 4 ITA No. 3331, 3332/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 Shri Amit Mangilal Jain 58/Mum/2023.The original appellate orders dated 10.08.2022 were also quashed and set aside. 3.3 Subsequently, as per direction of hon'ble High Court order, the ITAT has restored the appeal. The additional ground raised by the assessee was already admitted

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

Section 263 of the Act." 16.20 In the above mentioned judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court 16.20 In the above mentioned judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court 16.20 In the above mentioned judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that no addition can be made in respect of assessments has held that no addition

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

57. We note that Section 147 does not refer to the requirement of fresh tangible material. The requirement of existence of fresh tangible material and its link with formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has been read into Section 147 of the Act by way of judicial precedents to guard against the arbitrary action on the part

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

57. We note that Section 147 does not refer to the requirement of fresh tangible material. The requirement of existence of fresh tangible material and its link with formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has been read into Section 147 of the Act by way of judicial precedents to guard against the arbitrary action on the part

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

57. We note that Section 147 does not refer to the requirement of fresh tangible material. The requirement of existence of fresh tangible material and its link with formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has been read into Section 147 of the Act by way of judicial precedents to guard against the arbitrary action on the part

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

57. We note that Section 147 does not refer to the requirement of fresh tangible material. The requirement of existence of fresh tangible material and its link with formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has been read into Section 147 of the Act by way of judicial precedents to guard against the arbitrary action on the part

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 148 r.w.s. 147, on similar reasons to believe as recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer for AY 2015-16 noted in above paragraphs. Reassessment was completed by making an addition of Rs.2,57

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material 57 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta found during the course of search under Section

M/S. BIOBUILD DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 148. Since there was confusion prevailing with regard to the powers of the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess on the issues for which no reasons were recorded, this explanation came to be inserted as clarificatory. The reasons for insertion of this clarificatory explanation in clause (57

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessment of income u/s 153A read with the section 153C of the Act, on the basis of the said information contained in the documents seized as well requisitioned though which is not 57

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed thereafter. Within the grounds on the merits of the case, assessee has made an alternative claim without prejudice, by resorting to allowability of deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Act. 10. Before we delve on the issue, we take note of the factual matrix of the transaction under taken by the assessee for claiming deduction of interest

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed thereafter. Within the grounds on the merits of the case, assessee has made an alternative claim without prejudice, by resorting to allowability of deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Act. 10. Before we delve on the issue, we take note of the factual matrix of the transaction under taken by the assessee for claiming deduction of interest