TOWNSHIP REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartownship Real Estate V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Developers Private Limited, बनाम Income Tax– 6, Room No. C-62, Vibgyor Tower, Bandra 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Kurla Complex, Bandra - East, Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai –400 051, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabct7356E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 80G of the Act of CSR expense amounting to Rs.20,31,500/-, The AO was directed to make an enquiry in this matter and reassess

BHARAT SERUMS AND VACCINES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarbharat Serums & V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaccines Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 15(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra 400708, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb2431M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 80G of the Act of CSR expense amounting to Rs.98,80,296/-.The AO was directed to make an enquiry in this matter and reassess

M/S GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI/ CIRCLE1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 80G of the Act. The ld. CIT(A)\nhas dismissed both the grounds upholding reassessment and\nconfirming the addition

ACIT 3 3 1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-\nobjection of the assessee are dismissed

reassessment completed u/s\n147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2023, the Assessing Officer\nmade disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act\namounting to Rs.4,30,00,000/- holding that the same was in the\nnature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenditure incurred\nby the assessee, which is not allowable.\n4.\nOn further appeal

STRATA GEOSYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Strata Geosystems (India) P. Ltd. Pcit Plot No. A-15/16, Sabnam 6Th Floor House, Central Cross Road B Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Andheri East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 093. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaics3717K Appellant Respondent

reassessment was quashed due to absence of fresh material and being a mere change of opinion. In contrast, the present case involves revision under Section 263, where the assessment order was passed without proper inquiry into the allowability of deduction under Section 80G

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

80G of the Act of expenses amount to Rs.3,85,25,000/- subject to fulfillment of requisite conditions. So, we find no infirmity in the impugned appellate order related to this ground. The ground of the revenue stands dismissed. 11 ITA Nos 1601 & 3038. /Mum/2025 Hubtown Limited 12. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue Ground no. 1(iii) & (iv) are dismissed

HUBTOWN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

80G of the Act of expenses amount to Rs.3,85,25,000/- subject to fulfillment of requisite conditions. So, we find no infirmity in the impugned appellate order related to this ground. The ground of the revenue stands dismissed. 11 ITA Nos 1601 & 3038. /Mum/2025 Hubtown Limited 12. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue Ground no. 1(iii) & (iv) are dismissed

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

reassessment are accordingly rejected. The ground no. The ground no. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. the appeal is dismissed. Estate of Vandravan P Shah Estate of Vandravan P Shah ITA No. 5401, 5402 & 5403/MUM/2024 13. The ground Nos s. 3 and 4 of the appeal relate to the merit of . 3 and 4 of the appeal relate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment notice, dated 27/03/2021, issued under Section Assessment Year: 2015-16 148 of the Act and the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2022, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act are quashed. The submissions made by the parties relating to merits of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80G

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

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 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

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 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

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 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

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 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

SBI DFHI LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating the fact that mere adopting of one view out of two possible views based on the specific inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer in respect of the issue under consideration cannot render the order so passed to be erroneous, though

SIDDHARTH COLORCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddharth Colorchem Pvt. Ltd., Dcit 3(3)(1), 121 Atanta, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcs 7709 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jain Revenue By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

section 263 to the extent of AO's action of not disallowing an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- being claim of deduction u/s 80G in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility expense incurred, as per the ground/s contained in the order or otherwise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Pr. Commissioner of Income

BLUE DART EXPRESS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

Section 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,37,85,334, however, the allowability of the said deduction has not been questioned in the reassessment

MILLENNIUM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmillennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-3, Ground Floor, Ceejay House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcm6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

80G and the FAO in the order section 144 rws 144B r.w.s. 148 has allowed it. Therefore, the order of the FAO, u/s. 144 rws 147 rws 144B dated 17.01.2022 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." 3. The Pr. CIT, Mumbai-3 has erred in holding that the reassessment

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

reassessment are accordingly rejected. The ground no. 1 of\nthe appeal is dismissed.\n13. The ground Nos.3 and 4 of the appeal relate to the merit of\nthe addition. The Id CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee\non merit observing as under:\n“15. During the appeal proceedings, Grounds of appeal, Facts of\nthe case, Assessment order, submission