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)

6 raised in the present appeal. 60. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have perused the material on record. 61. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf of the Assessee on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

147 \nof the Act was partly allowed. \n152. The Assessee has raised 4 grounds of appeal. We would first \ntake up Ground No. 2 to 4 raised by the Assessee dealing with \nthe merits of the disallowance/additions made by the Assessing \nOfficer \nGround No.2 to 4: \n153. Ground No.2 to 4 pertaining to disallowance made in respect of \npayments made

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)

6 raised in the present appeal. 60. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have perused the material on record. 61. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf of the Assessee on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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)

6 raised in the present appeal. 60. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have perused the material on record. 61. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf of the Assessee on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) 11-12-2017 Assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act 8. On a careful reading of the impugned order of learned PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act, it becomes very much clear that he has revised the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, an assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year iod of four years from

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

reassessment order. The Pr. CIT erred in not following the Bombay High Court decision in the Appellant's own merged entity's case ICICI Limited in ITA No.6375/2010 dated February 8, 2012 for AY 1996-97 upholding the Mumbai Tribunal order in setting aside the order passed under section 263 of the Act as it was barred by limitation

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

3 to 6 raised by the Assessee are \nallowed.\n65. Thus, appeal preferred by the Assessee [ITA \nNo.2616/Mum/2025] is partly allowed.\nITA No.2845/Mum/2024 [Revenue’s Appeal]\n& Cross Objection No.97/Mum/2024 [in Revenue’s \nAppeal]\n66. Now we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the \n Assessment Year 2012-2013 (ITA No.2845/Mum/2024) which is \ndirected against the Order

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 37(1) of the Act would not\napply. In this context, we respectfully agree with the\nobservations made by the coordinate Bench in case of\nMilestone Real Estate Fund (Supra). Pertinently, in case of\nM/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Mad.), identical issue of\ndisallowance of payment made to motor vehicle dealers\nu/s.37

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

u/s 143(3) r.w.s147 dated 30.12.2019, passed in your case is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, within the meaning of section 263 of the income tax act, 1961. Hence, it is proposed to make the revision of aforesaid order as per the powers entrusted in me under section 263 of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

6) of the Act to verify the lenders went unanswered, thereby reinforcing the to verify the lenders went unanswered, thereby reinfo to verify the lenders went unanswered, thereby reinfo inference that the loan transactions were not genuine. It is further inference that the loan transactions were not genuine. It is further inference that the loan transactions were not genuine

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

3/- paid by\nthe assessee was to be amortized over the\nremaining period of three years. The basis behind\nthis Rule, in our humble understanding, is to value\nthe investment only at its face value which is what\nthe assessee would get at the end of the period\nand any excess paid over the face value while\nacquiring the security

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, MUMBAI

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act is no more re-integra as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has settled the same. The Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of ACIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd, reported in 32 taxmann.com 162 has held as under. "4. So far as Tax Appeals No.77/2012 and 78/2012 are concerned

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, MUMBAI

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act is no more re-integra as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has settled the same. The Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of ACIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd, reported in 32 taxmann.com 162 has held as under. "4. So far as Tax Appeals No.77/2012 and 78/2012 are concerned

M/S. RAVI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-17, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ii) bad and doubtful debts; and (iii) excess depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers. Though the return of income in respect of the "Lease Equalisation Fund" was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 and by his order came to the conclusion that the assessee

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

II, Ludhiana [326 ITR 39(Pun. & Har. (2010)], The relevant portion the decision given in this case justifying the issuance of notice u/s. 148 is reproduced as under: “After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-assessee and going through the order passed by the IT AT, we do not find any ground to Interfere in this appeal

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment is otherwise bad in law; DR Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. 3 DR Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. ITA Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2748 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 of the 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 of the 1.3. The Appellant prays that

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment is otherwise bad in law; DR Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. 3 DR Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. ITA Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2748 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 of the 1.3. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceedings u/s. 147 of the 1.3. The Appellant prays that