SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

65,10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

65,10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

65,04,559/- payable to the assessee on refund due to the assessee arising out of self assessment tax paid in excess than tax due by the assessee. The AO , however, did not granted any interest on refund due to the assessee on account of self assessment tax paid in excess than tax due by the assessee. The relevant assessment

M/S. SIMTOOLS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3) ( EARSTWHILE DCIT- CENT. CIR-42), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A. 21 M/s. Simtools Pvt. Ltd. [(3) Nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after

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

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

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

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

reassessment, naturally the reasonable time limits for initiation and completion of action u/s 201(1) have to be similar to those available for assessment u/s 147. Accordingly, we hold that proceedings u/s 201(1) can be initiated in the extended period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income by virtue of sum paid

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

reassessment order passed by ld. A.O. 147 r.w.s.143(3) holding wrongly the said assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That the ld. Principal CIT while setting aside the assessment order has erred in erroneously applying the concept of accrual system of accounting in the case by overlooking the concept of real income theory

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)

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

reassessment of extended years. If that key is missing,\nincorrectly identified, or ultimately discarded, the entire\nproceeding collapses for lack of jurisdiction.This principle aligns\nwith the jurisprudence laid down in CIT v. Jet Airways (Bombay\nHC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Delhi HC), Fortune Vanijya\n(Gauhati HC) and Goldstone Cements Ltd. (Gauhati HC), which\nhold that in the absence

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and\nissued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notice,\nthe assessee filed his return of income and statutory notices under section\n143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the\nassessee. The AO vide order dated 28/12/2018 passed

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