ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 139; (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made:" 36.1 It is very clear from a bare reading of the above provisions that the return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s 153A

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 139; (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made:" 36.1 It is very clear from a bare reading of the above provisions that the return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s 153A

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue\nare dismissed

801A of the Act. The\nstatutory provisions, the circulars issued by the CBDT and\nthe legal issues arising from the various judicial\npronouncements have also been examined with reference to\nthe factual aspects of the contracts carried out by the\napplicants, in respect of which the deduction under Section\n801A has been claimed. We are of the considered opinion that

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings, the AO held that the deduction u/s.80-HHC of the Act had been claimed by including in the profits of business profits from Honda Unit and Kundaim unit in respect of which the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA. According to the AO allowing such a claim would amount to allowing claim for double deduction. i.e. both u/s. 801A

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings, the AO held that the deduction u/s.80-HHC of the Act had been claimed by including in the profits of business profits from Honda Unit and Kundaim unit in respect of which the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA. According to the AO allowing such a claim would amount to allowing claim for double deduction. i.e. both u/s. 801A

JSW STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment u/s.263 of the Act of any order M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. merely on account of a difference of opinion is not permissible. What has already been examined and decided cannot be revisited in these proceedings. When the Ld. AO has taken one of the two views permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which

JSW STEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment u/s.263 of the Act of any order M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. merely on account of a difference of opinion is not permissible. What has already been examined and decided cannot be revisited in these proceedings. When the Ld. AO has taken one of the two views permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment u/s.263 of the Act of any order M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. merely on account of a difference of opinion is not permissible. What has already been examined and decided cannot be revisited in these proceedings. When the Ld. AO has taken one of the two views permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which

JSW STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment u/s.263 of the Act of any order M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. merely on account of a difference of opinion is not permissible. What has already been examined and decided cannot be revisited in these proceedings. When the Ld. AO has taken one of the two views permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassess such income. The A.O. clearly had reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and the same can be reopened under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that in the instant case since the assessment has been reopened within four years from the end of the assessment year, the proviso to section

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassessments can be framed u/s 147/148 of the Act if no new tangible material has come to the notice of the A.O. as there is no reason to believe based upon the new tangible material coming into the possession of the A.O. which could lead to forming an opinion that an income has escaped assessment, thus, it would warrant that

THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1) ., MUMBAI vs. RPS INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of M/s. RPS Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

THE DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1) ., MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHAH & PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. M/S Shah & Parikh Central Circle 5(1), 2, Vallabh Niwas, Room No. 1928, 19Th Malviya Road, Floor, Air India Bldg, Vile Parle(E), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057 Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfs4684D Appellant .. Respondent

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,91,194/- on account of bogus

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAKET INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of M/s. Saket Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RPS INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. M/S Rps Priti Jv, Central Circle 5(1), C-113, Shyamkamal Room No. 1928, 19Th Bldg, 27 Tejpal Road, Floor, Air India Bldg, Agarwal Market, Vile Nariman Point, Parle (E), Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aabar7230F Appellant .. Respondent

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,69,21,550/- as alleged

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRITI CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." iii.&iv Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the M/s. Priti Construction, Mumbai. addition of bogus purchase expenses