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

Section 14A(2) of the Act, read\n40\nITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others\nM/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.\nwith Rule 8D of the Rules, before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to\nrecord satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance\nunder Section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where

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

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

147 of the Act\ndeclared to be invalid. If our findings on this ground goes against the revenue,\nrest of the grounds will become infructuous and not required any adjudication\nfrom our side.\n21. We have gone through the order of AO alongwith reasons for reopening\nsupplied to the assessee, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of both

PANKAJ DHANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-22(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

147 of the act cannot be initiated merely on the ground\nthat the learned assessing officer has lost sight of the statutory\nprovisions like 50C, 43CA and section 56 (2) of the act. For this\nproposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable\nBombay High Court in case of in ICOR Ltd dated 23 July 2018.\n32. He further

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

METROPOLITAN STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

viia) and in respect of foreign exchange rate difference. Neither in the first order of reassessment dated 22 February 2000 nor in the second order of reassessment dated 26 March 2002 were these aspects determined. In other words on the aforesaid three issues, the original order of assessment dated 10 March 1999 passed under Section 143(3) continued to hold

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings was valid, it is only to be seen whether there was prima\nfacie some material on the basis of which the department could\nreopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a\nthing to be considered at this stage. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on\nthe decisions in the cases of Aravali

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. AACHMAN VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26/12/2018 determining the total income at Rs. 21,16,400/-. A search and seizure action was conducted on 22/03/2018 by DDIT (Inv.) Wing, Unit - 6(1), Mumbai in the case of Aachman Group and other related entities. The case of the assessee company was covered under the search and seizure

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