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

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- \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827

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

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1, THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRLCE-1, THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD, NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRLCE-1 , THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

GANESH BENZOPLAST LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act by asking specific query during assessment proceedings and assessee has filed all the necessary details in response thereto which was duly considered by the AO and then the assessment was framed. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring

ACIT (OSD) CIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. GREENLAND FERTILIZERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Acit (Osd) Cit 3(1) M/S. Greenland Fertilizers Ltd. R.No.607, 75-B, Mittal Court, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point Vs. M.K. Rd. Mumbai-400021 Mumbai -400020 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaach1784M Revenue By Shri Nitin Waghmode (Dr) Respondent By None

reassessment u/s 147 is incorrect as no new details or any inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income was noticed by the A.O. All the details were filed by the appellant company with the return of income along with prescribed statutory audit report, balance sheet 5 Greenland Fertilizers Ltd. and trading & profit & Loss A/c. Even the fact taken

HIND OFFSHORE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). 2 ITA No. 3408/Mum/2016. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 1) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the reopening of the completed assessment u/s 148 by the AO, as the AO had no jurisdiction to issue such notice after the relevant matter of allocation

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. 8.2 Having noticed the above, we may also refer to the second and the third proviso to section 153-A(1). For the sake of convenience, the second and third proviso to section 153A(1) of ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023 A.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. the said

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. 8.2 Having noticed the above, we may also refer to the second and the third proviso to section 153-A(1). For the sake of convenience, the second and third proviso to section 153A(1) of ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023 A.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. the said

TOWERS WATSON INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2007-08 are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.26/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Tower Watson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Cit Range 8(3), (Formerly Watson Wyatt India Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd.) M.K.Road, Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai- 400020. Bldg. No. 5, 1St Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 093. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg2955K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 43A is also not applicable in this case as the gain/loss is on purchase of depreciation assets. The irregular allowance of deduction towards unrealized foreign exchange gain resulted in under assessment of income.” 3. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessee was asked to file return of income within 31 days of the receipt

WATSON WYATT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2007-08 are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.26/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Tower Watson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Cit Range 8(3), (Formerly Watson Wyatt India Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd.) M.K.Road, Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai- 400020. Bldg. No. 5, 1St Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 093. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg2955K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 43A is also not applicable in this case as the gain/loss is on purchase of depreciation assets. The irregular allowance of deduction towards unrealized foreign exchange gain resulted in under assessment of income.” 3. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessee was asked to file return of income within 31 days of the receipt

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

147, 148,\n149, 151 and 153.\n8.2 Having noticed the above, we may also refer to the second and\nthe third proviso to section 153-A(1). For the sake of\nconvenience, the second and third proviso to section 153A(1) of\nthe said Act which is relevant is reproduced below and reads thus\n:\nProvided further that assessment