Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

Aditya Jagdish Lahoti, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 23(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaraditya Jagdish Lahoti, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of 27/31, 4Th Floor, Bootwala बनाम Income Tax, Circle– 23(1), 113, Building, Old Hanuman 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Lane, Kalbadevi, Mumbai Road, Mumbai – 400007, 400 002, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajrpl0027C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Aditya Jagdish Lahoti, v/s. Assistant Commissioner of 27/31, 4th Floor, Bootwala बनाम Income Tax, Circle– 23(1), 113, Building, Old Hanuman 1st Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Lane, Kalbadevi, Mumbai Road, Mumbai – 400007, 400 002, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AJRPL0027C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Ajinkya M. Vaishampayan, AR Respondent by : Shri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 04.06.2025 Date of Prono…

Mukesh Kumar Bhawarlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)6, Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mukesh Kumar Bhawarlal Jain vs Assessing Officer Shop No.11, 215/217, NFAC, Assessment Unit, Delhi / Kalbadevi Road, Abhinandan ITO 23(2)(6), Market, Ground Floor Piramal chamber, Mumbai-12 Mumbai-400 002 PAN : AIMPJ2447C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Jalaj Prakash (Adv), Shri Suchek Anchliya Respondent by : Shri Annavaram Kosuri(SRAR) Date of hearing : 04/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/06/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): Instant app…

Sanjay Natwarlal Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO -33(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…itation, as the same was issued pursuant to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), which were not amended in the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s Rajeev Bansal, reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). 8. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In order to decide the issue at hand, it is, at the outset, relevant to note that the provisions of section 149 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, which provides the time limit for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, a…

ITO WD 11(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Valee Developers Private Limited, Plot No., Park Estate

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO Ward 11(3)(1), Vs. Valee Developers Mumbai Private Limited Smt. Jankidevi Public School Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053. PAN/GIR No. AACCV0307Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ketan Vajani, CA Revenue by Shri Manish Sareen (CIT DR) Date of Hearing 01/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 10/07/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of…

Jar Pictures LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

…than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, the notice could have been issued only after the approval or sanction of notice by the ld. PCCIT or ld. CCIT. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 has categorically held that the conditions provided u/s.151 is mandatory. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paras of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:- 73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtai…

Mrs Nayana Ashok Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6247/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs. Nayna Ashok Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer- 15/2, Agarwal Nagar, Dr. 20(2)(1) Ambedkar Road, Matunga Piramal Chambers, Central, Lal Baug, Mumbai-400019 Mumbai-400012 PAN:ASWPS4651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Varsha Nanwani Respondent by Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR. A.R. Date of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.05.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by t…

Mahender Singh Arora, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: the expiry of 6 years from the end of Assessment Year 2014-2015). Subsequently, in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022], communication, dated 31/05/2022, was sent to the Assessee intimating that the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (under old regime) would be treated as the show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (under new regime introduced by the Fi

…barred by limitation. Per Contra, the stand taken by the Learned Departmental Representative is that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). 11. We note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the case Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), made the following observations in relation to the interplay between the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and TOLA: “b. Interplay of Ashish Agarwal with TOLA 108.The Income-tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under section 148, which fell for completion from…

Naina Manish Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnaina Manish Desai, Flat No. 6, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3Rd Floor, Triveni Building, बनाम – 19(2)(4), Piramal Walkeshwar Triveni Chs E Chambers, 5Th Floor, Block, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 006, Maharashtra 400012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabps9026P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

…Naina Manish Desai 2022. The assessee seeks to challenge the jurisdiction of the ld.AO in issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act. In this regard, she placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) which has held that the prior approval for passing the order under section 148A(d) and issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act should be after obtaining the approval of the appropriate authority under section 151 of the new regime. Therefore, the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have been taken as pe…

Vijay Naraindas Brijwani, Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6744/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vijay Naraindas Brijwani, Flat No. 1302, Mohan Pride, IRIS, Khadakpada, Kalyan - 421301, Maharashtra Appellant/अपीलार्थी V/S. बनाम Assessing Officer, Income Tax Office, Ward - 2, Kalyan Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mohan Plaza, Khadakpada, Kalyan-400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AHWPB4057H .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri M Subramaniam, AR Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing…