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

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

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

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 ()

26-03-2014 Draft assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act 24-12-2014 Directions issued by DRP 30-01-2015 Final assessment order passed 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

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

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 : Mr. Devendra Jain Assessee by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR Revenue by : 09/07/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement

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 read with First Proviso thereto. 11. The reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year

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 read with First Proviso thereto. 11. The reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year

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 read with First Proviso thereto. 11. The reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year

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 read with First Proviso thereto. 11. The reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year

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)

26. It was also stated by the ld. A.R. by referring to the relevant sections legislated for the purpose that no time limit has been prescribed by the statute anywhere to issue a notice u/s 153A of the Act requiring the person searched to furnish the return of income therein for assessment / reassessment as is prescribed for issuing a notice

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

26,896/-, The FD's as seen from the Balance sheet were mainly with The FD's as seen from the Balance sheet were mainly with The FD's as seen from the Balance sheet were mainly with co operative banks and not with co operative society. This co operative banks and not with co operative society. This co operative

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

26. Special procedure is prescribed under Section 153A to 153D for assessment in cases of search and requisition. There cannot be a quibble with the proposition that the special provision shall prevail over the general provision. To say it differently the provisions of Section 153A to 153D have prevalence over the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Section

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

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non- \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827

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) is applicable to all assessees in the country and not the Appellant alone. Thus, the action of the AO on this issue seems erroneous, however as per provisions of section 147 if the AO has reason to believe that any income has ICICI Bank Limited Assessment Year-2004-05 escaped assessment which comes to his notice subsequently

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

26(1), Bombay House 24, Mumbai Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 (PAN : AAATT9835A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Shri Atul Suraiya and Shri T.P. Ostwal, CAs Revenue : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

26(1), Bombay House 24, Mumbai Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 (PAN : AAATT9835A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Shri Atul Suraiya and Shri T.P. Ostwal, CAs Revenue : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

26(1), Bombay House 24, Mumbai Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 (PAN : AAATT9835A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Shri Atul Suraiya and Shri T.P. Ostwal, CAs Revenue : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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)

10] The proviso to section 147 envisages action in the ordinary course within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. That limitation does not, however, apply to the cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account, inter alia, of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material