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)

35,025/- 33,40,32,445/- S.No. Name of the Company F.Y. Feed charges Pay channel cost 1 M/s. Win Cable & Datacom 2003-04 90,48,730/- 14,87,77,141/- Pvt. Ltd. (upto 31.7.2003) The assessee failed to deduct tax at source as required u/s. 194C of the Act, 1961. Show-cause notices dated 23.9.2003 were issued and served

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

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 19. Inevitable conclusion is that High Court has wrongly applied Adani Exports case (supra) which has no application to the case on the facts in view of the conceptual difference between section 143(1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 24 Navnidhi Steel & Engg

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)

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2.\nThe CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8.\nWe have heard the both the sides

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

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 ()

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

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

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

H.B. GUM INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 20.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13\nwherein disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act of Rs.35 lakh was confirmed\nand appeal was dismissed.\n2. The brief facts as culled out from proceedings before the lower\nauthorities are that the appellant is a private

M/S CRESCENT ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1252 & 1253/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Crescent Organics Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Windsor,2Nd Floor, Cst Road, 14(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kalina,Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 098 Pan – Aaacc1690D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.R Respondent By: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.12.2020

reassessment on the ground that the same was based on a mere change of opinion which was not permissible under law. However, the CIT(A) not finding any merit in the contentions advanced by the assessee in context of the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O u/s 147 of the Act, therein, rejected the same. On merits

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

u/s 201(1A) also. We hold accordingly.” 24 Thereafter, from paragraph 17.11 the Tribunal dealt with the contentions of the Assessee that the time limit for initiation and completion of the proceedings under Section 201(1) ought to be the period of four years. The cases relied upon have been referred to and in paragraph 17.14 it is held that

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

u/s 201(1A) also. We hold accordingly.” 24 Thereafter, from paragraph 17.11 the Tribunal dealt with the contentions of the Assessee that the time limit for initiation and completion of the proceedings under Section 201(1) ought to be the period of four years. The cases relied upon have been referred to and in paragraph 17.14 it is held that

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

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

35,840/- as computed by the Cross\nObjector.\n10\nITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others\nM/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.\n9.\nwithout prejudice to the above, Cross Objector prays that the AO be directed to\nexclude strategic Investments and Investments in unlisted companies for working out\ndisallowance u/s. 14A.\n8.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.\n569/Mum/2023

PJL CLOTHING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8 2 1, MUMBAI

In the result,the appeal of the In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpjl Clothing India Pvt. V/S. Nfac/Dcit 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, Vitthaldasthackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

u/s 147 initiated on 19.03.2019. As per information . As per information RDS, Hyderabad was not recognized for the Hyderabad was not recognized for the purpose of Section 35(1)(ii) and not eligible for raising any donation for purpose of Section 35(1)(ii) and not eligible for raising any donation for purpose of Section 35(1

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)

reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee which culminated into passing of Assessment Order, dated 29/06/2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the case was again reopened under Section 147 of the Act after recording the reason and after obtaining the approval from the competent authority. The notice under Section

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)

reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee which culminated into passing of Assessment Order, dated 29/06/2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the case was again reopened under Section 147 of the Act after recording the reason and after obtaining the approval from the competent authority. The notice under Section

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)

reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee which culminated into passing of Assessment Order, dated 29/06/2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the case was again reopened under Section 147 of the Act after recording the reason and after obtaining the approval from the competent authority. The notice under Section