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

3 to 6 raised by the Assessee are \nallowed.\n65. Thus, appeal preferred by the Assessee [ITA \nNo.2616/Mum/2025] is partly allowed.\nITA No.2845/Mum/2024 [Revenue’s Appeal]\n& Cross Objection No.97/Mum/2024 [in Revenue’s \nAppeal]\n66. Now we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the \n Assessment Year 2012-2013 (ITA No.2845/Mum/2024) which is \ndirected against the Order

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

147 \nof the Act was partly allowed. \n152. The Assessee has raised 4 grounds of appeal. We would first \ntake up Ground No. 2 to 4 raised by the Assessee dealing with \nthe merits of the disallowance/additions made by the Assessing \nOfficer \nGround No.2 to 4: \n153. Ground No.2 to 4 pertaining to disallowance made in respect of \npayments made

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)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

3/- paid by\nthe assessee was to be amortized over the\nremaining period of three years. The basis behind\nthis Rule, in our humble understanding, is to value\nthe investment only at its face value which is what\nthe assessee would get at the end of the period\nand any excess paid over the face value while\nacquiring the security

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)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

Section 37(1) of the Act would not\napply. In this context, we respectfully agree with the\nobservations made by the coordinate Bench in case of\nMilestone Real Estate Fund (Supra). Pertinently, in case of\nM/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Mad.), identical issue of\ndisallowance of payment made to motor vehicle dealers\nu/s.37

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)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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

ii)\nwhere such reopening is sought to be done after the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the relevant assessment year. In other words,\nthe requirement in the first proviso to Section 147 of there having to be\na failure on the part of the Assessee "to disclose fully and truly all\nmaterial facts" does

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

ii)\nwhere such reopening is sought to be done after the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the relevant assessment year. In other words,\nthe requirement in the first proviso to Section 147 of there having to be\na failure on the part of the Assessee "to disclose fully and truly all\nmaterial facts" does

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

section 147 of the Act, an assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year iod of four years from

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

ii. By a circular No. 8 of 2003 dated 18-9-2003 (See 263 ITR (St) 2003 (See 263 ITR (St) 61 at 107) the CBDT has clarified that on initiation of proceedings 61 at 107) the CBDT has clarified that on initiation of proceedings 61 at 107) the CBDT has clarified that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment is otherwise bad in law; DR Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. 3 DR Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. ITA Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2748 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 of the 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 of the 1.3. The Appellant prays that

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment is otherwise bad in law; DR Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. 3 DR Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. ITA Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2748 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 of the 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 of the 1.3. The Appellant prays that

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

u/s 148 of the IT Act. In its reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer had duly In its reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer had duly In its reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer had duly mentioned that the appellant assessee had filed the C&AG mentioned that the appellant assessee had filed the C&AG mentioned that the appellant assessee had filed

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

BHASKAR ARVIND KUMAR HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

reassessment u/s 147, the limitation period provided in Sec. 263(2) had to be reckoned from the date of order u/s 143(3) and not with reference to date of the order passed u/s 147/143(3). 33 A.Y. 2014-15 Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad 33. Useful reference in this regard may also be made to the decision

THE ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings under section 147 when the time for issuance of notice under section 143(2) had not expired. However, taken a different view in the case of ITO v. K M Pachiyappan (311 ITR 31) (Mds.) upheld that the assessing officer in initiating the proceedings under section 147 in similar circumstances. However, it appears that the important distinction

ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings under section 147 when the time for issuance of notice under section 143(2) had not expired. However, taken a different view in the case of ITO v. K M Pachiyappan (311 ITR 31) (Mds.) upheld that the assessing officer in initiating the proceedings under section 147 in similar circumstances. However, it appears that the important distinction