ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, M/S United Liner Agencies Of Cc-6(4), R. No.32(1), India P. Ltd. बनाम/ Ground Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Office Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road No.801, C-Wing, Behind Mumbai-400020 Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacu5182C Shri Narendra Kumar Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Y. P. Trivedi & Usha Dalal

reassessment proceedings were initiated mainly for disallowance of the deduction as in the opinion of revenue assessee is not entitled to such deduction and the reasons as stated in the assessment order for making disallowance of the deduction are as under: (1) Deduction under section 80 IA is available only to the structures situated at the ports and assessee

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 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 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 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

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 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

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

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

4, 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee]” 18. It is relevant to refer to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1977] 106 ITR 1 which reads as under: “……………….The words "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

4, 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee]” 18. It is relevant to refer to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1977] 106 ITR 1 which reads as under: “……………….The words "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL - 1, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

801A(4) of the Act. 6. It is further pertinent to mention here that infrastructure facility, within the meaning of section 80IA of the IT Act, means the facility developed, operated and maintained for the purpose of public utility. However, in the assessee case, the facility of jetty is developed or maintained for the purpose of captive use only

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

section 139;\n(b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment\nyears immediately preceding the assessment year relevant\nto the previous year in which such search is conducted or\nrequisition is made:\"\n36.1 It is very clear from a bare reading of the above\nprovision that the return of income filed in response to the\nnotice issued

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

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

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

AQUA TECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)-3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

801A(4) of the Act which remained unverified during the course of reassessment proceedings Hence, element of loss of revenue is present in reassessment order passed by the A.O. exhibiting non-application of mind to relevant material available on records including the information received in respect of transactions with L&T 10.1 Section

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

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