ACIT 23-1, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

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

147,08,42,740/- after making addition of INR 127,93,22,744/- [136,23,14,178 less INR 8,29,19,134] by denying the exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 10(23FB) of the Act in respect of the income received from investment (AYs: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) made in the Venture Capital Undertaking

ACIT-231, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

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

147,08,42,740/- after making addition of INR 127,93,22,744/- [136,23,14,178 less INR 8,29,19,134] by denying the exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 10(23FB) of the Act in respect of the income received from investment (AYs: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) made in the Venture Capital Undertaking

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

147 of the Act. Accordingly, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd 31.03.2021 and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance 31.03.2021 and duly served upon

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was not applicable. Placing reliance upon\nParagraph 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the order impugned, the Learned\nDepartmental Representative submitted that the reasons\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

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

reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was not applicable. Placing reliance upon\nParagraph 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the order impugned, the Learned\nDepartmental Representative submitted that the reasons\n==End of OCR for page 15==\nrecorded fully satisfied

ACIT, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

u/s. 10(35) of the Act is\ndeleted.\"\nAgainst the above order Revenue is in appeal before\nus.\n16.\n17.\nWe have heard both the parties and perused the\nrecords. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon\nthe order of the Assessing Officer. However, he could not\npoint out as to why assessee shall not be allowed exemption\nunder section 10

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act.\n2.2 The Appellant prays that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act as\nwell as consequent order be quashed.\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS\nGROUND NO. III: DENIAL OF EXEMPTION US. IO(23FB) OF\nTHE ACT:\n3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT(A) erred

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

reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was not applicable. Placing reliance upon\nParagraph 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the order impugned, the Learned\nDepartmental Representative submitted that the reasons\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

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

reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was not applicable. Placing reliance upon\nParagraph 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the order impugned, the Learned\nDepartmental Representative submitted that the reasons\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

reassessment proceedings u/s proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the case of th n the case of the assessee are without authority of are without authority of law and accordingly should be quashed. law and accordingly should be quashed. 6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties

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 ()

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) 11-12-2017 Assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act 8. On a careful reading of the impugned order of learned PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act, it becomes very much clear that he has revised the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings under section 147 by making additions of Rs. additions of Rs. 2,27,46.240/- while the approval note under section 151 e the approval note under section 151 was obtained for income escaping assessment of Rs. 1,00,000/ was obtained for income escaping assessment of Rs. 1,00,000/ was obtained for income escaping assessment

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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the same do not conform to the requirements of Section 147

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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the same do not conform to the requirements of Section 147

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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the same do not conform to the requirements of Section 147

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)

u/s 148 is to be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the same do not conform to the requirements of Section 147

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

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

reassessment proceedings\nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section\n147 of the Act was not applicable. Placing reliance upon\nParagraph 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the order impugned, the Learned\nDepartmental Representative submitted that the reasons\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

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

reassessment proceedings \nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the \nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section \n147 of the Act was not applicable. Placing reliance upon \nParagraph 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the order impugned, the Learned \nDepartmental Representative submitted that the reasons \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024