MILLENNIUM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmillennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-3, Ground Floor, Ceejay House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcm6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

80G and the FAO in the order section 144 rws 144B r.w.s. 148 has allowed it. Therefore, the order of the FAO, u/s. 144 rws 147 rws 144B dated 17.01.2022 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." 3. The Pr. CIT, Mumbai-3 has erred in holding that the reassessment

ITO 3(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. EVERLON SYNTHETICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 147 authorises and permits the AO to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Thus, again it could be seen that Hon’ble ITA 6965/Mum/2013 32 Supreme Court held that the AO has power to assess or reassess the income and the AO does

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

POOJA HARDWARE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

80G. 2. This appeal was earlier heard by the Income This appeal was earlier heard by the Income This appeal was earlier heard by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (In short the ‘Tribunal’) (In short the ‘Tribunal’) on 28.10.2019, wherein the appeal wherein the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Subsequently, of the assessee was allowed. Subsequently, a a Miscellaneous

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

80G of the Act and thereby, accepted the claim for deduction of INR 2,14,15,000/- as made by the Assessee in the return of income for the relevant assessment year. Assessment Year: 2015-16 8. Subsequently, notice dated 27/03/2021 under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

80G] or] under section 263 [or under section 271] [or undersection 272A] [***] or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263] [or an order passed by a [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or a [Principal Director General or] Director General or a [Principal Director or] Director under section 272A; [or]] [(d) an order

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

section 147 of the Act, it would appear that the power to make assessment or reassessment within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year would be attracted even in cases where there has been a complete disclosure of all relevant facts upon which a correct assessment might have been based in the first instance, and whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN EDUCATION SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 in violation of the first proviso to section 147. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Assessee that the Learned Assessing Officer had erred in reopening the assessment merely for making verification or enquiry

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN EDUCATION SOCIETY , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 in violation of the first proviso to section 147. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Assessee that the Learned Assessing Officer had erred in reopening the assessment merely for making verification or enquiry

MY HEALTHSKAPE MEDICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2120/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) M/S. My Healthskape V/S. Pcit, Mumbai-4 Medicals Pvt. Ltd. बिाम Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, 4-425A, Sharma Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Estate, Walbhat Road, Karve Road, Mumbai- Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400020 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4683K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022 was passed by the Faceless Assessment Officer without making enquiries or verifications on the issues of bogus donation given to Bioved Research Society, deduction claimed u/s. 35 of the Act on account of bogus expenditure and deduction u/s. 80G of the Act. 5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is seen