MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

68 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 3.35. Similar view has been taken by Lucknow Bench of ITAT in case of Micro fin Security Pvt. Ltd vs. Additional CIT 94 TTJ 767 wherein it was held that in absence of any allocation being made in favour of Additional Commissioner to make an assessment, he cannot

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICAL LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

68 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 3.35. Similar view has been taken by Lucknow Bench of ITAT in case of Micro fin Security Pvt. Ltd vs. Additional CIT 94 TTJ 767 wherein it was held that in absence of any allocation being made in favour of Additional Commissioner to make an assessment, he cannot

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

68 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 3.35. Similar view has been taken by Lucknow Bench of ITAT in case of Micro fin Security Pvt. Ltd vs. Additional CIT 94 TTJ 767 wherein it was held that in absence of any allocation being made in favour of Additional Commissioner to make an assessment, he cannot

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING P.LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

68 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 3.35. Similar view has been taken by Lucknow Bench of ITAT in case of Micro fin Security Pvt. Ltd vs. Additional CIT 94 TTJ 767 wherein it was held that in absence of any allocation being made in favour of Additional Commissioner to make an assessment, he cannot

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

68 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 3.35. Similar view has been taken by Lucknow Bench of ITAT in case of Micro fin Security Pvt. Ltd vs. Additional CIT 94 TTJ 767 wherein it was held that in absence of any allocation being made in favour of Additional Commissioner to make an assessment, he cannot

SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Him.

Section 2(1)(b)(ii) must be read to mean the Income Tax Act as amended by the Finance Act 2021. The substitution of Sections147 to 151 will not affect the purpose of TOLA, which is, to provide relaxation of the time limit for completion or compliance of any actions falling for 5 Assessment Year 2017-2018 completion between

GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

68,670/- for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 A.Y. 2016-17. The returned income for the A.Y. 2015-16 is Rs. 2,85,020/- and for the A.Y. 2014-15 the returned income is Rs. 2,09,190/- The notice issued by the DY CIT Circle (1)(2)(1) Mumbai is without jurisdiction and hence reassessment made under section

K.J. KHILANANI EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by the assessee on the reopening of assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 35 & 36/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

151(2) of the Act mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tac. The Commissioner of Income Tax is not a Jt. Commissioner within the meaning of section 2(28C). Hence, the powers which are conferred upon a particular authority have to be exercised by that authority and the satisfaction which the statute

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RISHABH AVNISH MODY, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

2. Though, revenue’s appeal is on merits challenging the deletion of addition made u/s. 68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, however, in the cross objection, the assessee has raised a pertinent jurisdictional issue challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act on the ground that prior to issuance of notice

JOSEPH MATHEW KUNNATHETTU,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, KALYAN

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjoseph Mathew Kunnathettu Vs. Acit Circle 3, 14, Trimurthi Apartment, Gandhi 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Nagar, Dombivili (E), Maharashtra – Murbad Road Kalyan, 421 201 Maharashtra – 421 301 Pan: Ailpk9660M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated Joseph Mathew Kunnathettu 13.02.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13 wherein the additions made by AO of Rs. 34,60,000/- u/s 69A of the Act and Rs. 30,16,343 u/s 68 of the Act was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 2. The brief

CYRUS PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act in respect of sale proceeds of shares of Anuh Pharma Ltd. by wrongly treating the sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit. 4. The appellant respectfully submits that both the assessment unit and CIT (A) have erred in not appreciating the correct facts of the case and also the documentary evidences on record while considering the sale

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing the impugned orders dated 30th July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said provisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and the impugned orders

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

68 153C. 69 [(1)] 70[Notwithstanding anything contained in [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 147, section 148 section 148, section 149, section 151 and and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68 Vol I Factual Paper Book (“FPB”). ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim Industries Ltd. 2018-19 2. The Hon‟ble National Company Law Tribunal („NCLT‟), Ahmedabad Bench, vide its order dated 1st June 2017 approved the said composite scheme of arrangement (Pg. No. 7 – 24 Vol I FPB). As per the said scheme, the merger was effective from 1st July