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)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

u/s 153C of the Act, issues a notice u/s 153C to file a return of income for reassessment, then he makes an assessment / reassessment of such income u/s 153A of the Act. 65. Now, the entire procedure is the same except under different sections having two separate contingencies. In our opinion, the Legislature has not left any discretion

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

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non- \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827

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

sections 30 to 43A and,\ntherefore, unless there was a specific\nprohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be\njustified in. adding back the amount under\nrule 5(a), Therefore, even if the debit for\namortization is considered as an\nexpenditure, there is no specific prohibition\nagainst allowing such an expenditure\nunder the provisions of sections

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

91) (FPB (FPB - 118) 7. AO to pass order disposing objections to AO to pass order disposing objections to 05-11-2018 05-11 11-2018 05-11-2018 reopening (FPB - 111) (FPB - 94) (FPB (FPB - 121) 8. AO AO to to issue notice issue notice u/s 143(2) w.r.s. u/s 143(2) w.r.s

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

91) (FPB (FPB - 118) 7. AO to pass order disposing objections to AO to pass order disposing objections to 05-11-2018 05-11 11-2018 05-11-2018 reopening (FPB - 111) (FPB - 94) (FPB (FPB - 121) 8. AO AO to to issue notice issue notice u/s 143(2) w.r.s. u/s 143(2) w.r.s

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)

Section 147 will be applicable and concluded assessment can be reopened only if there is an failure on the part of assessee to fully and truly disclose materials facts in the return of income filed with the Revenue . It was submitted that the assessee made true and complete disclosures of all material facts while filing return of income u/s

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

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 32 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground

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

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 32 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section 153C of the Act practically is the same except the jurisdiction and root cause which are different. The legislature has specifically carved out scope of assessment / reassessment of income

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section 153C of the Act practically is the same except the jurisdiction and root cause which are different. The legislature has specifically carved out scope of assessment / reassessment of income

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section 153C of the Act practically is the same except the jurisdiction and root cause which are different. The legislature has specifically carved out scope of assessment / reassessment of income

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section 153C of the Act practically is the same except the jurisdiction and root cause which are different. The legislature has specifically carved out scope of assessment / reassessment of income

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section 153C of the Act practically is the same except the jurisdiction and root cause which are different. The legislature has specifically carved out scope of assessment / reassessment of income

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section 153C of the Act practically is the same except the jurisdiction and root cause which are different. The legislature has specifically carved out scope of assessment / reassessment of income

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

91. 34 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section 153C of the Act practically is the same except the jurisdiction and root cause which are different. The legislature has specifically carved out scope of assessment / reassessment of income

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

Appeal is allowed

reassessment order passed by ld. A.O. 147 r.w.s.143(3) holding wrongly the said assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That the ld. Principal CIT while setting aside the assessment order has erred in erroneously applying the concept of accrual system of accounting in the case by overlooking the concept of real income theory