KOMAL ENTERPRISES,DOMBIVALI vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KALYAN, KALYAN

ITA 4420/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2026AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as there was no new tangible material and the original assessment had already examined the issue. Consequently, the reassessment order and the addition made were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) for a housing project. The original assessment allowed this deduction. Later, the AO reopened the assessment, alleging non-compliance with conditions regarding commercial space and built-up area, and disallowed the deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid when the original assessment had already considered the issue and no new material was presented? Whether the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) based on the facts?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 80IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (CIT DR)
Hearing: 22/01/2026Pronounced: 30/01/2026

Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): Both the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012- 13, date of both the orders 29.05.2025. Both the impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Mumbai (for brevity the 2 ITA 4420 & 4421/Mum/2025 Komal Enterprises “Ld. AO”) order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act date of orders 28.12.2018. 2. Both the appeals have same nature of fact

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →