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

13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer to proceed under section

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)

Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938, no\nperson shall after the expiry of six months from the\ncommencement of this Act, pay or contract to pay any\nremuneration or reward whether by way of commission or\notherwise for soliciting or procuring insurance business in\nIndia to any person except an insurance agent or an\nintermediary or insurance intermediary

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

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

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

Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938, no\nperson shall after the expiry of six months from the\ncommencement of this Act, pay or contract to pay any\nremuneration or reward whether by way of commission or\notherwise for soliciting or procuring insurance business in\nIndia to any person except an insurance agent or an\nintermediary or insurance intermediary

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

Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938, no\nperson shall after the expiry of six months from the\ncommencement of this Act, pay or contract to pay any\nremuneration or reward whether by way of commission or\notherwise for soliciting or procuring insurance business in\nIndia to any person except an insurance agent or an\nintermediary or insurance intermediary

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

Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938, no\nperson shall after the expiry of six months from the\ncommencement of this Act, pay or contract to pay any\nremuneration or reward whether by way of commission or\notherwise for soliciting or procuring insurance business in\nIndia to any person except an insurance agent or an\nintermediary or insurance intermediary

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act are held to be legally valid. Both grounds Section 147 of the Act are held to be legally valid. Both grounds Section 147 of the Act are held to be legally valid. Both grounds raised in the applicatio raised in the application under Rule 27 stand rejected. n under Rule

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), 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

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

u/s. 148 of the IT.Act, 1961.\nIt is also evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration.\n3.\nIn view of the above, you may submit your response with supporting documents (if any) on the above mentioned issues to undersigned electronically

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

reassessment 9 ITA Nos. 3674/Mum/2025 and ors. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 7. 25th May 2022 Notice u/s 148A(b) along with statements 44-79 and 20th June of Sanjay Periwal and Harshavardhan Kalyan 2022 and BSE Equity Expiry trade Part 1 -4 8. 24th June 2022 Reply to show cause notice u/s 148A