MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

reopening assessment for assessment year 2006-2007 under Section 148 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order'). 3. The facts leading to the present petition are as under: (a) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of home finance. For the assessment year 2006-2007 (previous year ending on 31.03.2006), the Petitioner filed its return of income

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

reopening assessment for assessment year 2006-2007 under Section 148 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order'). 3. The facts leading to the present petition are as under: (a) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of home finance. For the assessment year 2006-2007 (previous year ending on 31.03.2006), the Petitioner filed its return of income

LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

reopen assessment is the lack of co-relation between the payment received by the petitioner and the TDS certificate issued

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

TDS on advertisement and sales promotion are concerned leading to disallowance of the entire amount of Rs. 22.48 crores under Section 40(a)(ia) the same was also subject to scrutiny by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. In fact, the clause 17(f) of the tax audit report submitted alongwith return of income clearly brings out the fact

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JASVINDER KALYAN SALUJA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

reopening, it was merely on the basis of ‘change of the opinion ‘change of the opinion,’ which is not permitted in law ’ which is not permitted in law therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja 8 ITA No. 1987/MUM/2024 & CO No. 82/MUM/2024 5.1 The Ld. Departmental

BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -LTU -1 , MUMBAI

In the result we find that in absence of tangible material, the reopening of assessment cannot be made

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Bajaj Auto Limited 2N D Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Income-Tax, Vs. 226, Nariman Point, Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2923M

reopening of the assessment as well as the addition and disallowance, both. Several other grounds were also raised on short credit of TDS

DCIT 14(20(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI HOME FINANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-14(2)(1),432, 4Th Floor, M/S Icici Home Finance Co. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, West Wing South Tower, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aaaci6285N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 81/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7223/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

reopened in the absence of any application of mind by the A.O, therefore, the reassessment proceedings were liable to be struck down on the said count itself. In order to buttress her aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the A.O had during the course of the original assessment proceedings raised queries in respect