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

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 order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 17th January

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

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

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

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

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)

5. Asteroids Trading and Investments Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom), 6. Siemens Information Systems Ltd., (2008)295 ITR 333 (Bom) and 7. Asian Paints Ltd., (2009)308 ITR 195 (Bom) ITA 6965/Mum/2013 12 8. Delhi High Court full Bench in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, (2002) 256 ITR 1 (del) 9. Sirpur Paper Mills

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(5)(VI) of the | Tax Act was granted by the director of the I Tax Kolkata by the director of the I Tax Kolkata e) The CBDT in its notification dated 28.01.2009, approved by The CBDT in its notification dated 28.01.2009, approved by The CBDT in its notification dated 28.01.2009, approved by the central govt for the purpose

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

5) of section 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

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

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:-

u/s. 80G of the Act. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was as per provisions of section 1474 of the Act. Reliance is place in this regard on the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Dy. CIT, [2012] 20 taxamann.com 5 (SC)/[2012] 206 Taxman 33 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G or under section 263or under section 270Aor under section 271or under section 272Aor an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under Page No. 17 ITA NO.6832 & 6772/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03) CO NO.190/MUM/2011 M/s. Novartis India Limited section 263or an order passed by a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General