AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

exempt income u/s 10 of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that the assessee is maintaining common books of accounts and hence the expenses are to be apportioned between different heads of income. The AO disallowed expenses on proportionate basis to the tune of Rs. 7,21,181/- u/s 14A of the 1961 Act while framing original assessment order dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25.1.1,MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. J M FINACIAL PROPERTY FUND II, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1), J M Financial Property Fund Ii, 1St Floor, Room No. 115, Kautilya 141, Makers Chambers Iii, Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aabtj 0512 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. The reassessm issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. The reassessm was completed by the Assessing Officer on 29.01.2020 passed u/s was completed by the Assessing Officer on 29.01.2020 passed u/s was completed by the Assessing Officer on 29.01.2020 passed u/s 147 of the Act wherein

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sai Prerana Co-Op Society Ltd., Ito-7(3)(2), 317, Puran Aasha Bldg. Gr. Fl. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Narashi Natha Street, Katha Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Bazar Musjid Bunder (W), 43 Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 009. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order

u/s 800(2) which is clearly in contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD contravention to provisions of the Act. The income from FD was required to be offered under the head "income from other s required to be offered under the head "income from other

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)

u/s 153C of the Act, issues a notice u/s 153C to file a return of income for 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

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

147 of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity of .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on reassessment proceedings, despite

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

147 of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity of .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on reassessment proceedings, despite

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

147 of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity of .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on reassessment proceedings, despite

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

147 of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity of .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on reassessment proceedings, despite

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

147 of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity of .2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding validity reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on reassessment proceedings, despite

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was competed wherein, the Assessing Officer withdrawn of the Act was competed wherein, the Assessing Officer withdrawn of the Act was competed wherein, the Assessing Officer withdrawn the exemption u/s u/s u/s 10(23FB) 10(23FB) 10(23FB) of of of the the the Act Act Act amounting to Rs.96,97,401/-,holding

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was competed wherein, the Assessing Officer withdrawn of the Act was competed wherein, the Assessing Officer withdrawn of the Act was competed wherein, the Assessing Officer withdrawn the exemption u/s u/s u/s 10(23FB) 10(23FB) 10(23FB) of of of the the the Act Act Act amounting to Rs.96,97,401/-,holding

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings to issue notice u/s. 148. 4.4. Against these reasons to believe, assessee raised its objection vide submission dated 11.07.2016 and strongly contended that on the first issue, the accumulation to the extent of 15% of income is statutorily permitted u/s. 11 (1)(a). This accumulation is unconditional and is different from the accumulation of income as provided u/s

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BANDRA MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings to issue notice u/s. 148. 4.4. Against these reasons to believe, assessee raised its objection vide submission dated 11.07.2016 and strongly contended that on the first issue, the accumulation to the extent of 15% of income is statutorily permitted u/s. 11 (1)(a). This accumulation is unconditional and is different from the accumulation of income as provided u/s

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings to issue notice u/s. 148. 4.4. Against these reasons to believe, assessee raised its objection vide submission dated 11.07.2016 and strongly contended that on the first issue, the accumulation to the extent of 15% of income is statutorily permitted u/s. 11 (1)(a). This accumulation is unconditional and is different from the accumulation of income as provided u/s

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee, made u/s 147 of the Act is beyond the scope of section 147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / 93. reassessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee, made u/s 147 of the Act is beyond the scope of section 147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / 93. reassessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee, made u/s 147 of the Act is beyond the scope of section 147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / 93. reassessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee, made u/s 147 of the Act is beyond the scope of section 147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / 93. reassessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee, made u/s 147 of the Act is beyond the scope of section 147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / 93. reassessment