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

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)

u/s 143(3) was completed on 23.03.2015\nassessing the total income at Rs.152,12,31,353/-\n\nInformation has been received from Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), Chennai that the Additional Director General of\nCentral Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai\nhas carried out some investigations in the cases of General\nInsurance Companies. On the basis of intelligence gathered

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

u/s \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 \n Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 \n8 \n37. In view of all the above, for the A.Y. 2010-11 I have reason \nto believe that income assessable to tax amounting to more

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

u/s\n\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834,\n2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024\n Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020\n9\n37. In view of all the above, for the A.Y. 2010-11 I have reason\nto believe that income assessable to tax amounting

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

u/s\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834,\n2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024\n Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020\n8\n37. In view of all the above, for the A.Y. 2010-11 I have reason\nto believe that income assessable to tax amounting to more

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

u/s\nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834,\n2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024\n Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020\n8\n37. In view of all the above, for the A.Y. 2010-11 I have reason\nto believe that income assessable to tax amounting to more

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

3) read with Section 147 of the Act. In the aforesaid\nappeal the Assessee has filed Cross-objections (C.O.\nNo.97/Mum/2024).\n\nITA No.2616/Mum/2025 (Assessee’s Appeal)\n\n25. We would take up ITA 2616/Mum/2025 preferred by the\nAssessee which is directed against the Order, dated 20/03/2024,\npassed by the CIT(A) whereby the appeal preferred by the\nAssessee against

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

ITO 3(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. EVERLON SYNTHETICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

u/s. 143(3) read with Section 147 of the ITA 6965/Mum/2013 13 Act was ordered to be deleted by the learned CIT(A) vide orders dated 20.09.2013. The assessee company also presented its detailed arguments on merit before the learned CIT(A), which are detailed by the learned CIT(A) in his appellate orders dated 20-09-2013. The learned

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

13 , which was already scrutinized under section 143(3) of the Act but notice u/s 148 of the Act has been section 143(3) of the Act but notice u/s 148 of the Act has bee section 143(3) of the Act but notice u/s 148 of the Act has bee issued on 31/03/2019, which is beyond the period

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. We find that during original assessment proceedings the issue of share application and share premium was very much the subject matter of enquiry by the AO and Ld. AO specifically enquired by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act. For this a query raised during original assessment proceedings

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

13 (3) read with Section 14C (3) on March 25, 2015 has considered the working of special reserve and has allowed deduction of special reserve at 514,43,59,610 – hence the reassessment on the said issue is on mere change of opinion on the same set of facts which is not permissible in law.” 035. On careful consideration

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

u/s 143(3) r.w.s147 dated 30.12.2019, passed in your case is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, within the meaning of section 263 of the income tax act, 1961. Hence, it is proposed to make the revision of aforesaid order as per the powers entrusted in me under section 263 of the Income

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

13, which relate to periods prior to the date of death. prior to the date of death. 9.2 Under the provisions of section 159 of the Act, the legal Under the provisions of section 159 of the Act, the legal Under the provisions of section 159 of the Act, the legal representative is deemed to be liable to di representative

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