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

section 263 is the removal of the prejudice caused to the revenue by the erroneous orders of the Assessing Officer. In CIT v. V.P. Agarwal [1993] 68

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

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 (supra

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

section 263 is the removal of the prejudice caused to the revenue by the erroneous orders of the Assessing Officer. In CIT v. V.P. Agarwal [1993] 68

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 263\nand therefore, the same is invalid, beyond\njurisdiction and hence barred by limitation.\n\n2. Taxing of income from foreign branches of INR\n26,68

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act. However, the learned AO has passed an order dated 28th March, 2013 under section 143(3) read with section 263

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

263 proceeding and as these write back pertains to provision which was never claimed as these write back pertains to provision which was never claimed as these write back pertains to provision which was never claimed as deduction and hence order passed under section 143(3) is not an deduction and hence order passed under section

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

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

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

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

263 of the Act, after set-off of other losses the assessed income of the assessee would be 7 Kamal Vyas the same as in the original assessment order. Thereby there is no loss of revenue to call the original order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. It is contended that the provision of section 68

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

263 of the Act. He further directed ld AO to consider applicability of section 68 of the Act, if the transaction

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)

68,30,713 Ground no 2 On the facts and in circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT has erred in initiating proceedings under section 263

NAV CONSEC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

Section 68 of the said Act treating it as unexplained cash credit are not attracted. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant assessee emphatically argued that inasmuch as the source of credit in which shares were allotted was clearly 11 ITA 3258/Mum/2016 M/s Nav Consec Pvt Ltd AY 2011-12 explainable, the same cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit

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

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68 wherein it was held that the income earned from letting out of Auditorium was eligible for exemption under section 11 when the income was applied to the objects of the Trust. 12. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently argued that the second CIT (Exemptions) has invoked the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 263

AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

section 263 of the Act and reply filed thereto by the assessee, which are as under: “Notice issued by the Ld. PCIT: (i) On perusal of the records, the assessment was reopened u/s.147 as it was found that the alleged payments totaling to Rs. 7,93,68

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68 was made in the normal computation of total income as well as in computation of profit under section 115JB of the act. 010. The Ld. CIT (TP)-4, Mumbai examined the case record and observed that the assessee has not filed form no. 3CEB relating to international transaction ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68 was made in the normal computation of total income as well as in computation of profit under section 115JB of the act. 010. The Ld. CIT (TP)-4, Mumbai examined the case record and observed that the assessee has not filed form no. 3CEB relating to international transaction ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023