SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,TELAGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68,675/-. 7.5. We find that the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is seeking to revise the second search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 19/06/2019 on the following grounds for the A.Y.2011-12:- (a) Mismatch of receipts as per 26AS with receipts as per profit and loss account

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

263 of The Income Tax Act with respect to the deduction claimed u/s 36 (1) (viii) of the act. The learned assessing officer while passing an assessment order u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the income tax act has considered the whole issue of the deduction u/s 36 (1) (viii) of the act where the deduction claimed

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

263 was rightly invoked. 11.11. Thus, the legal contentions of the assessee against the revision u/s.263 are not tenable. 8. Thereafter ld CIT held that each of the issues of assessment have been examined in detail as to whether they are actually erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thereafter he held as under :- “Issue 1: Disallowance u/s

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent. Similarly, if an order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, then also the power of suo moto revision cannot be exercised. Any and every erroneous order cannot be the subject-matter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled. There

BHASKAR ARVIND KUMAR HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

revision or rectification proceedings against finalized assessments/reassessments would not abate. Therefore, the argument of the revenue, that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the assessments/reassessments finalized for the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly on annulment of assessment made under Section 153A(1) what stands revived

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

revision under subsection (1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

263 Income Tax Act, 1961, the PCIT illegally withhold the refund which has arisen in consequence of the PCIT (Appeal) order as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s Order. This is a clear cut case of judicial indiscipline for which I request your honours that the cost be awarded under Section 254 (2B) to the asseseee and revenue

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

u/s 263 of the Act. In such scenario, the assessment order is bound to the erroneous and scenario, the assessment order is bound to the erroneous and scenario, the assessment order is bound to the erroneous and se of Rampyari prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the case of Devi Saraogi

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68,18,55,028.\n\n2.2 The learned PCIT erred in not following the\ndecision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bank of\nIndia (27 taxmann.com 335), affirmed by the\nBombay High Court in 64 taxmann.com 215 as\nalso adopted by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order\nfor AY 2008-09.\n\n2.3 The learned PCIT erred

GLAXO SMITH KLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Glaxo Smith Kline The Pcit-8, Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gsk House, Dr. Annie Besant Vs. Mumbai-400020. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4414 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022

revised under Glaxo Smith Kline 3 section 263 is neither erroneous/prejudicial to the interest of the section 263 is neither erroneous/prejudicial to the interest section 263 is neither erroneous/prejudicial to the interest revenue; revenue; 5. erred in relying on Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the Act erred in relying on Explanation 2(a) to section 263

RED MONSTER MOBILE PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400021 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 9. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR briefly brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and submitted that assessee has received share capital from Matrix Partners, who are Non-Resident of India

MUMBAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

68, read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share application money) - Assessment year 2009-10 - During relevant year, assessee-company had increased its share capital by issuing 7.93 lakhs shares of Rs.10 each at a premium of Rs.390 - Assessing Officer completed assessment without holding requisite investigation except for calling for records - Commissioner passed order under