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)(ii

POOJA HARDWARE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

35(1)(ii) of Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 by relying on the information received from Kolkata Directorate by relying on the information received from Kolkata Directorate by relying on the information received from Kolkata Directorate and the statements of the key per and the statements of the key persons of the institute SHG&PH, sons

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year. 16. Thus, from a bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that, where a search is initiated on or after 01/04/2017, and the Assessing Officer

KROSSOVER ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 12(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

147 of the Act on 29.10.2018 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,83,14,850/-. In that order, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of deduction u/s.35(l) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, by the said order, the assessee has filed this appeal. Before learned

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

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)

ii) of subsection (3) of section 153 and of Explanation 1 to section 153 shall, so far as may, apply to the time limit prescribed in subsection (3).] [Explanation.For the purposes of this section, the expression "accountant" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to subsection (2) of section 288.]” 35 Once same provisions are invoked

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

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

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

ii) only w.r.t. those investments which have yielded exempt income\nduring the year and exclude those investments which have not yielded exempt income\nduring the year.\nGROUND NO. 2 Short Deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) of Rs. 112.65 crores in respect\nof Provision for Standard Asset.\n1.\nThe CIT (A) erred in not considering provision on Standard Asset amounting

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

35,840/- as computed by the Cross\nObjector.\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 for AY 2017-18: -\nGROUND NO. I Disallowance

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

ii) of subsection (3) of section 153 and of Explanation 1 to section 153 shall, so far as may, apply to the time limit prescribed in subsection (3).] [Explanation.For the purposes of this section, the expression "accountant" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to subsection (2) of section 288.]” 35 Once same provisions are invoked

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

ii) of subsection (3) of section 153 and of Explanation 1 to section 153 shall, so far as may, apply to the time limit prescribed in subsection (3).] [Explanation.For the purposes of this section, the expression "accountant" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to subsection (2) of section 288.]” 35 Once same provisions are invoked

BENCO FINANCE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

ii). Intimation u/s 143(1) for A.Y 2012-13, dated 18.05.2013. Apart from that, the fact that the A.O had in the respective assessment orders passed by him u/s 143(3), dated 19.12.2011 and 30.01.2013 for A.Y 2009-10 and A.Y 2010-11 mentioned the new registered address of the assessee company, therein, dispels all doubts and in fact proves

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

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

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

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; The plea of Ld. Counsel for revenue is acceptable to that extent. The decision