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

7 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 36. Other deductions (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28- (vii) subject to the provisions of sub section

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

7 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 36. Other deductions (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28- (vii) subject to the provisions of sub section

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

reassess under unamended section 147, (b) issuance of notice under unamended section 148, (c) in accordance with time limit in terms of unamended section 149 and (d) sanction under unamended section 151 of the Act. 3 ITA Nos. 3674/Mum/2025 and ors. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 5. Whether section 3(1) of TOLA creates a legal

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassess the income after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that the scope of the aforesaid verification/inquiry shall be restricted to the provision contained in Section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Learned PCIT stands clarified/modified as aforesaid and scope of inquiry/verification in respect of deduction claimed for „Provision

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

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

7.\nTo delve on the issue in hand before us, let us take note of the provisions\ncontained in section 149 under the new regime introduced by the Finance Act,\n2021, prescribing limitation on issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Section 149 of\nthe Act reads as under:\n\nTime limit for notice.\n149. (1) No notice under section

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

reassess the income after granting the\nAssessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that\nthe scope of the aforesaid verification/inquiry shall be restricted to\nthe provision contained in Section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly,\nthe order passed by the Learned PCIT stands clarified/modified as\naforesaid and scope of inquiry/verification in respect of deduction\nclaimed for 'Provision

SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 263 and set aside the reassessment proceedings for fresh consideration and set aside the reassessment proceedings for fresh consideration and set aside the reassessment proceedings for fresh consideration observing as under: “7. The above explanation at clause (c) clearly provides that the 7. The above explanation at clause (c) clearly provides that the 7. The above explanation at clause

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

7. The learned PCIT erred in holding that the nature of the CSR e of the CSR obligation ipso facto disqualifies the assessee from claiming deduction obligation ipso facto disqualifies the assessee from claiming deduction obligation ipso facto disqualifies the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80G, despite absence of any express bar in the statutory under section 80G, despite

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

7.\nTo delve on the issue in hand before us, let us take note of the provisions\ncontained in section 149 under the new regime introduced by the Finance Act,\n2021, prescribing limitation on issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Section 149 of\nthe Act reads as under:\n\nTime limit for notice.\n\n149. (1) No notice under

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in ment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently

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

1 section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment 961, for the assessment year 2013-14. 14. M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 2. Grievance raised by the assessee, as set out in the 2. Grievance raised by the assessee

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

1 section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment 961, for the assessment year 2013-14. 14. M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 2. Grievance raised by the assessee, as set out in the 2. Grievance raised by the assessee

DEVANAND AMARNATH PARKAR,JOGESHWARI EAST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(4)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC, BANDRA EAST

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

7. To delve on the issue in hand before us, let us take note of the provisions\ncontained in section 149 under the new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021,\nprescribing limitation on issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Section 149 of the Act reads\nas under:\nTime limit for notice.\n149. (1) No notice under section

SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassess the case even after considering the ratio of above cited case does\nnot in any way amounts to re-agitating a legal issue on which the binding\nprecedence is already available.\n5.4.11 in terms of the discussion above read along with the order of the AO\ndt. 31.08.2018 rejecting the objection filed by the assessee against\nassumption of jurisdiction

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassess the case even after considering the ratio of above cited case does\nnot in any way amounts to re-agitating a legal issue on which the binding\nprecedence is already available.\n\n5.4.11 in terms of the discussion above read along with the order of the AO\ndt. 31.08.2018 rejecting the objection filed by the assessee against\nassumption

PRAFUL ARJUN RANE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

7. To delve on the issue in hand before us, let us take note of the provisions contained in section 149 under the new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, prescribing limitation on issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Section 149 of the Act reads as under: Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section

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

section 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business deductions and Chapter VI deductions and Chapter VI-A incentives must be respected, and A incentives must be respected, and their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. Accordingly