Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (464 ITR 430)

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 816/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. No. 816 to 820/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 to 2019-20 बनाम Shri Ravinder Singh Thakkar The ACIT, 15, Kailash Path, Suraj Nagar, Vs. Circile-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. Civil Lines, Jaipur. स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AHXPS7165C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :…

Amit Behal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1) (2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

…nd that notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) was issued by JAO, whereas it should have been issued by FAO under the new Faceless scheme of 2022. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the following case laws:  Hexaware Technologies Ltd v ACIT - (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom);  DCIT v. Amcor Flexibles India P. Ltd. - ITA 3842/Mum/2024;  Pravina Jagdish Patel v ITO-(2024) 164 taxmann.com 659 (Bom);  Jasjit Singh v UOI-(2024) 165 taxmann.com 114 (P& 5. Secondly, the ld AR attacked the order u/s 148A(d) as vague, scanty and non-specific and that the reopening is merely based on borrowed satisfaction. The ld AR…

Niranjan Kumar Sharma, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where Also He Could Only Partially Succeed Since The Ld. Cit(A) Remanded The Matter Back To The File Of Ld. Ao With The Direction To Afford An Opportunity

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…rs. 3 Niranjan Kumar Sharma (Bombay), WP (L) No. 19620 of 2025, order dated 07.07.2025. The Ld. AR read out from portions of this order, which is in favour of the assessee, following the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle15(1)(2) reported in 162 Taxmann.com 225 (Bombay). The Ld. AR argued that once it was established that the notice u/s 148 of the Act had to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer then the notice being issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was illegal. Regarding the issue of unsigned notice (supra), the Ld. AR stated that they had downloaded the copy of the notice from the…

Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandir, Hingolie, Hingoli vs. DCIT, Cir-Aurangabad, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1531/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1531/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vs Dcit Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, 01 Exemption Akola Road, Hingoli S.O Circle, Basamba, Hingoli-431513 Aurangabad Maharashtra Pan-Aabtd5118M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1531/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vs DCIT Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, 01 Exemption Akola Road, Hingoli S.O Circle, Basamba, Hingoli-431513 Aurangabad Maharashtra PAN-AABTD5118M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue by : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT Date of hearing : 09.07.2025 Date of : 15.07.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the ins…

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1870/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

…psis on 04.0.2025 again making certain submissions on the issue which was not heard at the time of submissions. To support his various contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws:  Hexaware Technologies Limited vs ACIT & Ors. (464 ITR 430) (Bom)  Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap Vs. ACIT (WPL No. 10683 of 2023) (Bom)  DCIT Vs. Ameor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. No. 3842/Mum/2024)(Mum-Trib)  ITO Vs. Vimal Kumar Totla (ITA No. 3252/M/2024) (Mum-Trib)  Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (ITA No. No. 1873, 1874 & 1875/M/2025)(Mum-Trib)  Rucha Consultancy LLP Vs. DCIT (174 taxmann.…

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1869/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

…psis on 04.0.2025 again making certain submissions on the issue which was not heard at the time of submissions. To support his various contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws:  Hexaware Technologies Limited vs ACIT & Ors. (464 ITR 430) (Bom)  Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap Vs. ACIT (WPL No. 10683 of 2023) (Bom)  DCIT Vs. Ameor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. No. 3842/Mum/2024)(Mum-Trib)  ITO Vs. Vimal Kumar Totla (ITA No. 3252/M/2024) (Mum-Trib)  Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (ITA No. No. 1873, 1874 & 1875/M/2025)(Mum-Trib)  Rucha Consultancy LLP Vs. DCIT (174 taxmann.…

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1868/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

…psis on 04.0.2025 again making certain submissions on the issue which was not heard at the time of submissions. To support his various contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws:  Hexaware Technologies Limited vs ACIT & Ors. (464 ITR 430) (Bom)  Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap Vs. ACIT (WPL No. 10683 of 2023) (Bom)  DCIT Vs. Ameor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. No. 3842/Mum/2024)(Mum-Trib)  ITO Vs. Vimal Kumar Totla (ITA No. 3252/M/2024) (Mum-Trib)  Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (ITA No. No. 1873, 1874 & 1875/M/2025)(Mum-Trib)  Rucha Consultancy LLP Vs. DCIT (174 taxmann.…

Abdulzameer Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1366/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

…of the Act is unlawful, invalid, and bad in law. 4. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Lid. v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (03-05-2024). Hence, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. II. On merits: 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds raised, the NFAC is not justified in setting aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration without appreciating that the provisions of section 69A of the Act are not applicable.…

Abdulzameer Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1365/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

…of the Act is unlawful, invalid, and bad in law. 4. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Lid. v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (03-05-2024). Hence, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. II. On merits: 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds raised, the NFAC is not justified in setting aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration without appreciating that the provisions of section 69A of the Act are not applicable.…