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

1) (vii) of the Act. The fact that this sum has been omitted to be claimed in the return of income has been amply demonstrated by the Assessee. Even in the reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced

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

1) (vii) of the Act. The fact that this sum has been omitted to be claimed in the return of income has been amply demonstrated by the Assessee. Even in the reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there is no evidence produced

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

vii), initiation of reassessment proceedings after four years has been sustained because there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. Likewise, in Suman Steels v. Union of India, (2004) 269 ITR 412,418-19 (Raj), where the return of the assessee for assessment year 1995-96 was processed under section 143(1

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

vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36(1)(viia

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

vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36(1)(viia

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)

9. Section 143(1) of the Act as applicable to the relevant assessment year was introduced by way of substitution of the earlier Section 143(1) by the new Section 143(1) by the Finance Act, 2008. The new Section 143(1) provided for computation of total income after making the adjustments to the returned income, inter alia

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

9. Your Appellant prays that the disallowance made in the impugned order is invalid and bad in law an order is invalid and bad in law and facts and hence the same may d facts and hence the same may please be deleted. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that during the relevant Briefly stated, facts

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagmohan Mahajan v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 579 (Punj. & Har.), held that a search authorized in the absence of material necessary to form the requisite belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagmohan Mahajan v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 579 (Punj. & Har.), held that a search authorized in the absence of material necessary to form the requisite belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagmohan Mahajan v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 579 (Punj. & Har.), held that a search authorized in the absence of material necessary to form the requisite belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income- tax was illegal and no order under section

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagmohan Mahajan v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 579 (Punj. & Har.), held that a search authorized in the absence of material necessary to form the requisite belief under section 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was illegal and no order under section

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

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

vii) The time limit for initiating the proceedings u/s 201(1) cannot be the same as that for the passing of order under this subsection. Time for initiation is always prior to the time for completing the proceedings. (viii) The reasonable time for initiating and completing the proceedings u/s 201(1) has to be at par with the time limit

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

vii) áll forms of electronic communication system developed for the delivery and provision of content for use by an end-user, and (b) operate an official internet website for each Event” 5.49. On the strength of the Master Rights Agreement, GCC granted rights to SET the rights specified in Clause 4 read with Part 6 of Schedule 1 annexed

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

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

vii) áll forms of electronic communication system developed for the delivery and provision of content for use by an end-user, and (b) operate an official internet website for each Event” 5.49. On the strength of the Master Rights Agreement, GCC granted rights to SET the rights specified in Clause 4 read with Part 6 of Schedule 1 annexed

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

vii) áll forms of electronic communication system developed for the delivery and provision of content for use by an end-user, and (b) operate an official internet website for each Event” 5.49. On the strength of the Master Rights Agreement, GCC granted rights to SET the rights specified in Clause 4 read with Part 6 of Schedule 1 annexed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. The reasons for reopening are as under:- “In this case, return of income was filed on 28.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1602,66,91,910/-under normal provisions. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return on 24.02.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 1609,22,64,610/-. Assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) dt 17.02.2016 determining total income