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

10 on the determination of the income of the assessee i.e. other person. ination of the income of the assessee i.e. other person. ination of the income of the assessee i.e. other person. Thus the second condition Thus the second condition of section 153C(1)(b) i.e. of section 153C(1)(b) i.e. any information contained therein , also , also does

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

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)

u/s 201(1) are initiated. (xi) Any order passed under Section 201(1) or (1A) cannot be held as barred by limitation if it is not passed within four years from the end of the relevant financial year.” 9 It is the correctness of these findings which is an issue before us. 10 Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing in support

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 19. Inevitable conclusion is that High Court has wrongly applied Adani Exports case (supra) which has no application to the case on the facts in view of the conceptual difference between section 143(1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 24 Navnidhi Steel & Engg

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or any money, bullion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the tion 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or any money, bullion

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

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

10(23G), deduction under section 35DDA had been considered in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated December 29, 2006 and section 147 of the Act does not postulate ICICI Bank Limited Assessment Year-2004-05 conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion as has been held

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section

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

1) of section 153A section 153A] :] ………………………. …………………………… ……………….. ………………..” Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd 6.1 From the plain reading of the above section it is clear that if From the plain reading of the above section it is clear that if From the plain reading of the above section it is clear that if (i) any cash money, bullion, jewellery

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act']. 2.1. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: "1 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and allowing the exemption of Rs. 1

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟]. 2.1. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and allowing the exemption of Rs. 1

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟]. 2.1. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and allowing the exemption of Rs. 1

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. erred in filing appeals without complying with the regulations and with defect and filed multiple appeals with the same grounds as raised for the present appeal, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or

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