NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

147 at which stage the assessee offered the said amount to tax. The AO & CIT levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of her income and concealed her income. However, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty on the ground that a "bona fide mistake" had been made on her behalf

SHRI MOHAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

1) of section 245D is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section, shall be excluded. If, after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

147 or section 153A or section 153C with the approval of the 33[Principal Commissioner or]Commissioner as referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order; [ (f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (vi)or sub-clause (via)of clause

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

reassessment or re computation under section 147;\nc. an order being an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A;\nd. an order under section 201;\ne. an order being an intimation under sub-section (6A) of section 206C;\nf. an order under sub-section (1) of section 206CB;\ng. an order imposing a penalty under Chapter

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

147 CTR (SC) 474 : (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC) CIT vs Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. Following is an extract from the decision. "5. The main contention of the assessee which was considered by the Tribunal was whether or not the order of the ITO regarding the said three items in respect of which the assessee had no occasion to prefer

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 3 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 244A to the appellant as determined by the Assessing officer is therefore, maintainable u/s. 246A(1

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

147 TT] 649) (Kol) - In this case, the assessee advanced secured loans as interest free funds to subsidiary, which was used by it for purpose of business i.e. hospitality business / construction of hotels. The interest on secured loan was denied by AO. The Tribunal, while relying on S. A. Builders Ltd (supra), held that once commercial expediency is established, interest

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the CIT(A), Mumbai. The Ld.CIT(A)- 47, Mumbai, vide Order dated 26.12.2017 decided the Assessee's Appeal. The Order giving effect to the Order of CIT(A) was passed on 12.04.2018 revising the income to Rs.1396,87,41,577/-. viii) In consequence of Order u/s 263 of the Income

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is quashed, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009-10 will not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 14. Now we take up the appeal in ITA.No. 3455/Mum/2017 for the A.Y.2012-13. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is quashed, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009-10 will not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 14. Now we take up the appeal in ITA.No. 3455/Mum/2017 for the A.Y.2012-13. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act on more or less identical facts and situation held as under: “In the report the Income-tax Officer does not set out any reason for coming to the conclusion that this is a fit case to issue notice under section 148. The material that he had before him for issuing notice under section

CABLE CORPORATION INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act on more or less identical facts and situation held as under: “In the report the Income-tax Officer does not set out any reason for coming to the conclusion that this is a fit case to issue notice under section 148. The material that he had before him for issuing notice under section

GENERAL LIFESCIENCE DISTRIBUTORS GMBH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-54, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the enumerated terms, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

reassessment proceedings were initiated and an ex-parte order was passed on 27.12.2019 under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 21961 4 ITA 2422 & 2423/Mum/2023 General Lifescience Distributors Gmbh (Act), thereby completing the assessment and making an addition of Rs 8,32,24,480 to the total income of the said company. 12. That thereafter, penalty proceedings

BIRLA CARBON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

147 of the Act even empowers ld. DRP to enhance the valuation on issues which the assessee may or may not have raised. Once ld. DRP issues a direction for the guidance of the A.O. to pass the final assessment order, in terms with sub-section 13 of section 144C, the A.O. has to pass the final assessment order