SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

147 of the Act, without bringing any new tangible\nmaterial to support his view of escapement of income is valid or not?\n(c) Whether the Ld CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim of the\nassessee that the deduction of 15% allowed u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act\nshould be allowed on gross receipts?\n(d) Whether

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

section 153C of the Act cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee. be invoked in the case of the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer Thus, the Assessing Officer has correctly invoked reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act has correctly invoked reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act has correctly invoked reassessment proceedings u/s 147

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)

11. In line of the aforesaid plea taken by the Ld. AR, we have to examine as to whether the conditions laid down in the 4th and 2nd proviso of section 153A are satisfied and to see, whether the assessment should have been framed u/s 153A or u/s 147/148. The reasons recorded by the AO wherein he has referred

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)

reassessment, naturally the reasonable time limits for initiation and completion of action u/s 201(1) have to be similar to those available for assessment u/s 147. Accordingly, we hold that proceedings u/s 201(1) can be initiated in the extended period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income by virtue of sum paid

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 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-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

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-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

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

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

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 (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

11 11th May 2023 Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, wherein the 131-136 and 17th details was May 2023 asked with respect to the transaction in stock options. 12. 19th May 2023 Appellant filed reply along with details of 137-144 transactions in options in response to the above notice u/s 142(1) 13. 23rd May 2023 Received

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

11-12 run from the end of the financial year in the order of reassessment was passed. Therefore, the natural corollary shows that there is no merger of the original order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act when the assessee is reassessed u/s 143 (3) of the act read with Section 147 of the act. Thus only

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 order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment, naturally the reasonable time limits for initiation and completion of action u/s 201(1) have to be similar to those available for assessment u/s 147. Accordingly, we hold that proceedings u/s 201(1) can be initiated in the extended period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income by virtue of sum paid

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

reassessment, naturally the reasonable time limits for initiation and completion of action u/s 201(1) have to be similar to those available for assessment u/s 147. Accordingly, we hold that proceedings u/s 201(1) can be initiated in the extended period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income by virtue of sum paid

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

147 of the Act was taken. 05. It was found during the F.Y. 2009-10 i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 that properties of the assessee were used by the specified persons. It was found that M/s Ideen Furniture Pvt. Ltd had occupied 8th i. floor of the assessee‟s trust building at Bandra Reclamation without any payment. The above

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

147 of the Act was taken. 05. It was found during the F.Y. 2009-10 i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 that properties of the assessee were used by the specified persons. It was found that M/s Ideen Furniture Pvt. Ltd had occupied 8th i. floor of the assessee‟s trust building at Bandra Reclamation without any payment. The above