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)

x), 8 and 11 of F & U Guideline dated 28/9/2006 and Circular Ref No IRDA/CIR/011/2003 dated 27/03/2013 as stated above 8. As seen in the above Paras, the payments made to the motor dealers were clearly in the nature of commission which was paid to the motor dealers and is hence a violation of: a) Violation of Point

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)

x), 8 and 11 of F & U Guideline dated 28/9/2006 and Circular Ref No IRDA/CIR/011/2003 dated 27/03/2013 as stated above 8. As seen in the above Paras, the payments made to the motor dealers were clearly in the nature of commission which was paid to the motor dealers and is hence a violation of: a) Violation of Point

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

56 3,52,08,000/- ITA No. 6405/Mum/2024 for the AY 2011-12 4. The assessee has raised multiple grounds in the memorandum of appeal. However, the core issue arising for consideration, going to the root of the assessment proceedings for this assessment year, is regarding the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

56 3,52,08,000/- ITA No. 6405/Mum/2024 for the AY 2011-12 4. The assessee has raised multiple grounds in the memorandum of appeal. However, the core issue arising for consideration, going to the root of the assessment proceedings for this assessment year, is regarding the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

56 3,52,08,000/- ITA No. 6405/Mum/2024 for the AY 2011-12 4. The assessee has raised multiple grounds in the memorandum of appeal. However, the core issue arising for consideration, going to the root of the assessment proceedings for this assessment year, is regarding the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

56 3,52,08,000/- ITA No. 6405/Mum/2024 for the AY 2011-12 4. The assessee has raised multiple grounds in the memorandum of appeal. However, the core issue arising for consideration, going to the root of the assessment proceedings for this assessment year, is regarding the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

56 3,52,08,000/- ITA No. 6405/Mum/2024 for the AY 2011-12 4. The assessee has raised multiple grounds in the memorandum of appeal. However, the core issue arising for consideration, going to the root of the assessment proceedings for this assessment year, is regarding the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

56 3,52,08,000/- ITA No. 6405/Mum/2024 for the AY 2011-12 4. The assessee has raised multiple grounds in the memorandum of appeal. However, the core issue arising for consideration, going to the root of the assessment proceedings for this assessment year, is regarding the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

56 3,52,08,000/- ITA No. 6405/Mum/2024 for the AY 2011-12 4. The assessee has raised multiple grounds in the memorandum of appeal. However, the core issue arising for consideration, going to the root of the assessment proceedings for this assessment year, is regarding the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

x. CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) xi. Acorus Unitech Wirelss Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del.). 12 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd xii. Praful Chunilal Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel vs Asst. CIT (1999) 832, 843-44, 844-45 (Guj.), xiii. Venus Industrial Corporation vs Asst. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (Punj

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

x. CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) xi. Acorus Unitech Wirelss Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del.). 12 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd xii. Praful Chunilal Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel vs Asst. CIT (1999) 832, 843-44, 844-45 (Guj.), xiii. Venus Industrial Corporation vs Asst. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (Punj

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

x. CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) Dinesh S. Jain xi. Acorus Unitech Wirelss Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del.). xii. Praful Chunilal Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel vs Asst. CIT (1999) 832, 843-44, 844-45 (Guj.), xiii. Venus Industrial Corporation vs Asst. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (Punj.), xiv. Srichand Lalchand

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment