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

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

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) ..

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) wherein returned income was accepted by the AO vide orders dated 06-07-2010 . The AO invoked penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated

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

Section 147 of the Act was disposed off \nas partly allowed. Assessee has also filed Cross Objection (C.O. \nNo.97/Mum/2024) in Revenue’s Appeal.\nITA No.2845/Mum/2024 [Revenue’s Appeal]\n67. The Revenue has raised three grounds of appeal in ITA No. \n2845/Mum/2024 which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.\nGround No.1\n68. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue reads

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

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

sections 30 to 43A and,\ntherefore, unless there was a specific\nprohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be\njustified in. adding back the amount under\nrule 5(a), Therefore, even if the debit for\namortization is considered as an\nexpenditure, there is no specific prohibition\nagainst allowing such an expenditure\nunder the provisions of sections

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 ()

271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.6 The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of on 20.12.2018 under the name

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

271 (Ker), the reassessment in question were held to be valid on the fact that the assessee claimed and was given relief under section 80HHA for the three preceding year which disentitled her for deduction under section 80HH for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. 63 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

271 (Ker), the reassessment in question were held to be valid on the fact that the assessee claimed and was given relief under section 80HHA for the three preceding year which disentitled her for deduction under section 80HH for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. 4.26. In the case of Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Asst

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

271 (Ker), the reassessment in question were held to be valid on the fact that the assessee claimed and was given relief under section 80HHA for the three preceding year which disentitled her for deduction under section 80HH for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. 4.26. In the case of Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Asst

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

271 (Ker), the reassessment in question were held to be valid on the fact that the assessee claimed and was given relief under section 80HHA for the three preceding year which disentitled her for deduction under section 80HH for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. 2.29. In the case of Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Asst

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

271 (Ker), the reassessment in question were Dinesh S. Jain held to be valid on the fact that the assessee claimed and was given relief under section 80HHA for the three preceding year which disentitled her for deduction under section 80HH for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. 4.26. In the case of Aquagel Chemicals

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

271 (Ker), the reassessment in question were held to be valid on the fact that the assessee claimed and was given relief under section 80HHA for the three preceding year which disentitled her for deduction under section 80HH for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. 2.28. In the case of Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Asst

ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN vs. RICH & ROYAL, KALYAN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

271 (Ker), the reassessment in question were held to be valid on the fact that the assessee claimed and was given relief under section 80HHA for the three preceding year which disentitled her for deduction under section 80HH for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. 2.25. In the case of Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Asst

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

147 and both the first appellate were invalid. On appeal, it has been held that the reassessments were to be valid. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Del), there being omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts Thus reassessment proceedings were held

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

147 and both the first appellate were invalid. On appeal, it has been held that the reassessments were to be valid. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Del), there being omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts Thus reassessment proceedings were held

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

147 and both the first appellate were invalid. On appeal, it has been held that the reassessments were to be valid. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Del), there being omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts Thus reassessment proceedings were held