Talati and Talati LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2883, 2884 & 2885/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, CC 5(1) Vs J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, . 16-A, Andheri Industrial Mumbai – 400051. Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400053 PAN: AAACJ9161C (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. Nos. 200, 201 & 202/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd Vs DCIT, CC 5(1) 16-A, Andheri Industrial . Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Estate, Veera Desai Road, Mumbai –…

DCIT CC 5(1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2883, 2884 & 2885/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, CC 5(1) Vs J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, . 16-A, Andheri Industrial Mumbai – 400051. Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400053 PAN: AAACJ9161C (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. Nos. 200, 201 & 202/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd Vs DCIT, CC 5(1) 16-A, Andheri Industrial . Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Estate, Veera Desai Road, Mumbai –…

DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI , BKC vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, ANDHERI

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2883, 2884 & 2885/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, CC 5(1) Vs J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, . 16-A, Andheri Industrial Mumbai – 400051. Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400053 PAN: AAACJ9161C (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. Nos. 200, 201 & 202/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd Vs DCIT, CC 5(1) 16-A, Andheri Industrial . Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Estate, Veera Desai Road, Mumbai –…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…ayHighCourt." 22. In addition to the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi and 41 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. Madras High Courts, the observations made by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Talall and Talati LLPv. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2024) 469 ITR 643 (Gujarat)) are of paramount importance in clarifying the scope and applicability of the ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, after carefully considering thejudgment in Hexaware, hasspecifically observedin para 27 asfollows: "27. The decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Te…

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…ayHighCourt." 22. In addition to the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi and 41 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. Madras High Courts, the observations made by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Talall and Talati LLPv. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2024) 469 ITR 643 (Gujarat)) are of paramount importance in clarifying the scope and applicability of the ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, after carefully considering thejudgment in Hexaware, hasspecifically observedin para 27 asfollows: "27. The decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Te…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

…, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to\nsidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional\nHigh Court on the ground that it did not take into\nconsideration a particular provision of law.”\nSecond rejoinder:\nTalati and Talati LLP v. ACIT (2024) 469 ITR 643 (Guj)\n(HC)\nComments: Reiteratingas mentioned in the Rejoinder, the\nview of the Jurisdictional High Court is that Central charge is\nalso covered by section 151A of the Act and hence the\ndecision of the jurisdictional High Court i.e. in the case of\nGanesh Jagtap may be followed.”\n43 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\n27. We have heard the counsels…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

Appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act whereas the case of Hexaware, supra, falls in Explanation 1 to section 148 of the Act. In respect of this, decision relied by the Ld. DR of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and Talati LLP v. ACIT [2024] 469 ITR 643 (Guj) applies wherein in para 27 of the said order, distinction is drawn between notice u/s.148 of the Act issued under Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act. 30. In the light of the above, we hold that the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued by JAO could not be treated as invalid and the said notice is correctly issued by JAO c…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

…lanation 2 to section 148 of the Act whereas the case\nof Hexaware, supra, falls in Explanation 1 to section 148\nof the Act. In respect of this, decision relied by the Ld. DR\nof Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and\nTalati LLP v. ACIT [2024] 469 ITR 643 (Guj) applies\nwherein in para 27 of the said order, distinction is drawn\nbetween notice u/s.148 of the Act issued under\nExplanation 1 and Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act.\n\n30. In the light of the above, we hold that the notice\nu/s.148 of the Act issued by JAO could not be treated as\ninvalid and the said notice is correctly issued b…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

…lanation 2 to section 148 of the Act whereas the case\nof Hexaware, supra, falls in Explanation 1 to section 148\nof the Act. In respect of this, decision relied by the Ld. DR\nof Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and\nTalati LLP v. ACIT [2024] 469 ITR 643 (Guj) applies\nwherein in para 27 of the said order, distinction is drawn\nbetween notice u/s.148 of the Act issued under\nExplanation 1 and Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act.\n\n30. In the light of the above, we hold that the notice\nu/s.148 of the Act issued by JAO could not be treated as\ninvalid and the said notice is correctly issued b…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

…lanation 2 to section 148 of the Act whereas the case\nof Hexaware, supra, falls in Explanation 1 to section 148\nof the Act. In respect of this, decision relied by the Ld. DR\nof Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and\nTalati LLP v. ACIT [2024] 469 ITR 643 (Guj) applies\nwherein in para 27 of the said order, distinction is drawn\nbetween notice u/s.148 of the Act issued under\nExplanation 1 and Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act.\n30. In the light of the above, we hold that the notice\nu/s.148 of the Act issued by JAO could not be treated as\ninvalid and the said notice is correctly issued by…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…ayHighCourt." 22. In addition to the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi and 41 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. Madras High Courts, the observations made by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Talall and Talati LLPv. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2024) 469 ITR 643 (Gujarat)) are of paramount importance in clarifying the scope and applicability of the ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, after carefully considering thejudgment in Hexaware, hasspecifically observedin para 27 asfollows: "27. The decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Te…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…ayHighCourt." 22. In addition to the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi and 41 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. Madras High Courts, the observations made by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Talall and Talati LLPv. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2024) 469 ITR 643 (Gujarat)) are of paramount importance in clarifying the scope and applicability of the ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, after carefully considering thejudgment in Hexaware, hasspecifically observedin para 27 asfollows: "27. The decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Te…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…ayHighCourt." 22. In addition to the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi and 41 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. Madras High Courts, the observations made by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Talall and Talati LLPv. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2024) 469 ITR 643 (Gujarat)) are of paramount importance in clarifying the scope and applicability of the ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, after carefully considering thejudgment in Hexaware, hasspecifically observedin para 27 asfollows: "27. The decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Te…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

…, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to\nsidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional\nHigh Court on the ground that it did not take into\nconsideration a particular provision of law.”\nSecond rejoinder:\nTalati and Talati LLP v. ACIT (2024) 469 ITR 643 (Guj)\n(HC)\nComments: Reiteratingas mentioned in the Rejoinder, the\nview of the Jurisdictional High Court is that Central charge is\nalso covered by section 151A of the Act and hence the\ndecision of the jurisdictional High Court i.e. in the case of\nGanesh Jagtap may be followed.”\n40\nJ Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\n27. We have heard the counsels…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

…Court.\"\n22. In addition to the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi and\n41 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\nMadras High Courts, the observations made by the\nHon'ble Gujarat High Court in Talall and Talati LLPv.\nOffice of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax\n[2024) 469 ITR 643 (Gujarat)) are of paramount\nimportance in clarifying the scope and applicability\nof the ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.. The\nHon’ble Gujarat High Court, after carefully considering\nthejudgment in Hexaware, hasspecifically observedin\npara 27 asfollows:\n\"27. The decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay\nHigh Court in the case of Hex…

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

…lanation 2 to section 148 of the Act whereas the case\nof Hexaware, supra, falls in Explanation 1 to section 148\nof the Act. In respect of this, decision relied by the Ld. DR\nof Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and\nTalati LLP v. ACIT [2024] 469 ITR 643 (Guj) applies\nwherein in para 27 of the said order, distinction is drawn\nbetween notice u/s.148 of the Act issued under\nExplanation 1 and Explanation 2 to section 148 of the\nAct.\n30. In the light of the above, we hold that the notice\nu/s.148 of the Act issued by JAO could not be treated as\ninvalid and the said notice is correctly issued by…

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

…lanation 2 to section 148 of the Act whereas the case\nof Hexaware, supra, falls in Explanation 1 to section 148\nof the Act. In respect of this, decision relied by the Ld. DR\nof Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and\nTalati LLP v. ACIT [2024] 469 ITR 643 (Guj) applies\nwherein in para 27 of the said order, distinction is drawn\nbetween notice u/s.148 of the Act issued under\nExplanation 1 and Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act.\n\n30. In the light of the above, we hold that the notice\nu/s.148 of the Act issued by JAO could not be treated as\ninvalid and the said notice is correctly issued b…

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

…lanation 2 to section 148 of the Act whereas the case\nof Hexaware, supra, falls in Explanation 1 to section 148\nof the Act. In respect of this, decision relied by the Ld. DR\nof Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and\nTalati LLP υ. ACIT [2024] 469 ITR 643 (Guj) applies\nwherein in para 27 of the said order, distinction is drawn\nbetween notice u/s.148 of the Act issued under\nExplanation 1 and Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act.\n30. In the light of the above, we hold that the notice\nu/s.148 of the Act issued by JAO could not be treated as\ninvalid and the said notice is correctly issued by…