RISING STAR INVESTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

147 of the Act. Order under sub- section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044380817(1), dated 31.07.2022”. In the said notice dated 31.07.2022 in para-3, it is noted that is has been issued after taking prior approval of the PCIT-17, Mumbai accorded on 31.07.2022, vide Reference No. Order

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred when he ignored that the assessment was reopened on the basis of approval granted by Principal CIT-17, Mumbai in mechanical manner without any application of mind. 3. Deduction u/s. 80P 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred when he confirmed the stand taken by the learned AO that only the income received

GATEGROUP INVESTMENTS SINGAPORE PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. INT TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhangateway Investments Singapore Pte Ltd. ...... Appellant 1 Maritime Square, # 12-03 Harbour Front Centre Singapore-99 253 Pan No. : Aaecg1565B

56(2) (viia) should be invoked in the hands of the assessee and the difference of Rs. 10, 57, 65,000/- may be brought to the tax. 6. On the basis of the information received, the AO recorded reasons u/s. 148 of the Act on 25.03.2021 and obtained approval of the Addl. CIT (IT) Range-2(3) Mumbai which

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

reassess the total income but there is a cap on the scope of additions in such assessment, being the items of income 'unearthed during the search'. In other words, the determination of 'total income' in respect of the assessment years for which the assessments are already completed on the date of search, shall not be influenced by the items

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

viia) of the act, although, the opening balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

viia) of the act, although, the opening balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

u/s. 153C”. On the other hand, only the Assessing Officer of other person, other than Assessing Officer of searched person can say and write “Issue notice u/s. 153C” 2.35. The above facts reflects that neither satisfaction note was issued by the Assessing Officer in his capacity as a 57 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

u/s. 153C”. On the other hand, only the Assessing Officer of other person, other than Assessing Officer of searched person can say and write “Issue notice u/s. 153C” 2.35. The above facts reflects that neither satisfaction note was issued by the Assessing Officer in his capacity as a 57 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

u/s. 153C”. On the other hand, only the Assessing Officer of other person, other than Assessing Officer of searched person can say and write “Issue notice u/s. 153C” 2.35. The above facts reflects that neither satisfaction note was issued by the Assessing Officer in his capacity as a 57 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis