ADIT (IT)-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

reassessment proceedings were initiated, inter alia, in view of the information/material gathered during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and assessment order dated 31.03.2005 was passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 1.2. Appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were partly allowed

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (INT. TAXATION) - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

reassessment proceedings were initiated, inter alia, in view of the information/material gathered during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and assessment order dated 31.03.2005 was passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 1.2. Appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were partly allowed

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9

SALTWATER STUDIO LLP,MUM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम / Saltwater Studio Llp Nfac, Delhi 103, Corporate Corner, F Block, Northe Block, Vs. Sunder Nagar, Near Dalmia New Delhi-110001 College, Malad (West) Mumbai-400 064 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ackfs1653D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of 9 AY 2017-18 Saltwater

DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN MADHAVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

reassessment notice under section\n148 of the Act on a substantive basis for the assessment year 2009-10, while\nin the year under consideration the said notice was issued on protective basis.\n9.\nThe findings of the AO vide assessment order dated 28/12/2017 passed\nunder section 147 r.w. section 143(3) of the Act, for the assessment year\n2009

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the PCIT in the revision order under section 263 of the Act has passed revision order setting aside the order of the AO passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act i.e. the reassessment

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

9.\n9.1\nWhile considering the issue involved, one has to consider the\nobject and purpose of insertion of Section 153A in the Act,\n1961 and when there shall be a block assessment under\nsection 153A of the Act, 1961.\nThat prior to insertion of Section 153A in the statute, the\nrelevant provision for block assessment was under section\n158BA

M/S. RAVI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-17, MUMBAI

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

Section 263 would commence from the date of the order of assessment and not from the date on which the order reopening the reassessment has been passed. 9

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

9 Assessment Years: 2011-12 case (supra). The issue which arose before the Supreme Court was whether, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation envisaged under sub-section (1) of section 263, the date of the order of assessment or of the order of reassessment

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

reassess" refers to a situation where an assessment has already been made but the Income-tax Officer has, on the basis of information in his possession, reason to believe that there has been under assessment on account of the existence of any of the grounds contemplated by the provisions of Section 147(b) read with the Explanation (I) thereto." 9

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

reassess" refers to a situation where an assessment has already been made but the Income-tax Officer has, on the basis of information in his possession, reason to believe that there has been under assessment on account of the existence of any of the grounds contemplated by the provisions of Section 147(b) read with the Explanation (I) thereto." 9

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding the regular provisions for assessment/ reassessment contained in the regular provisions for assessment

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

Appeal is allowed

9 Assessment Years: 2017-18 whether acceptance or acknowledgement of the return filed by the assessee and intimation sent for the purpose of section 143(1) is an assessment ? The answer, in our opinion, is in the affirmative. It is nevertheless ‗assessment‘. Assessment has been defined in section 2(8) as ‗assessment includes reassessment

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassess such income and\nalso any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped\nassessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in\nthe course of the proceedings under this section, or\nrecompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

9.\n9.1\nWhile considering the issue involved, one has to consider the\nobject and purpose of insertion of Section 153A in the Act,\n1961 and when there shall be a block assessment under\nsection 153A of the Act, 1961.\nThat prior to insertion of Section 153A in the statute, the\nrelevant provision for block assessment was under section\n158BA

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

Appeals are partly allowed

Section 92C of the Act applied to assessment or reassessment proceedings pending before an Assessing Officer as on 01/10/2009. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) as regards Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Ground No. 8 & 9

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

Appeals are partly allowed

Section 92C of the Act applied to assessment or reassessment proceedings pending before an Assessing Officer as on 01/10/2009. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) as regards Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Ground No. 8 & 9

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 proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a deceased proceedings initiated and completed in the name of proceedings initiated and completed in the name of Estate of Vandravan P Shah Estate of Vandravan P Shah ITA No. 5401, 5402 & 5403/MUM/2024 assessee, albeit through a legal representative, are legally assessee, albeit through a legal representative, are legally assessee, albeit