KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessment, then he makes an assessment / reassessment of such income u/s 153A of the Act. 65. Now, the entire procedure is the same except under different sections having two separate contingencies. In our opinion, the Legislature has not left any discretion on the revenue officers to make the assessment /reassessment under any of the said set of provisions

DCIT-CC(5), MUMBAI vs. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, appeal by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 149. Thus, the Court balanced the equities between the Revenue and the assesses by giving effect to the legislative scheme of reassessment as contained under the new regime. It supplemented the existing legal framework of the procedure of reassessment under the Income-tax Act with a remedy grounded in equitable standards.” 7.1. Hon'ble Apex Court while propounding

DCIT-CC- 5(4), MUMBAI vs. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, appeal by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 149. Thus, the Court balanced the equities between the Revenue and the assesses by giving effect to the legislative scheme of reassessment as contained under the new regime. It supplemented the existing legal framework of the procedure of reassessment under the Income-tax Act with a remedy grounded in equitable standards.” 7.1. Hon'ble Apex Court while propounding

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 132A of the Act, 1961.” 8. He further placed reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Nilesh Bharani vs. DCIT in ITA No. No.612/Mum/2020 dated 28/02/2023 wherein it was held as under:- 91. We have already observed in our earlier paragraphs that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 132A of the Act, 1961.” 8. He further placed reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Nilesh Bharani vs. DCIT in ITA No. No.612/Mum/2020 dated 28/02/2023 wherein it was held as under:- 91. We have already observed in our earlier paragraphs that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

sections 30 to 43A and,\ntherefore, unless there was a specific\nprohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be\njustified in. adding back the amount under\nrule 5(a), Therefore, even if the debit for\namortization is considered as an\nexpenditure, there is no specific prohibition\nagainst allowing such an expenditure\nunder the provisions of sections

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section