“Section 145(1)”

BHARAT MANUBHAI PATEL,MALAD vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

judgments referred to supra. So far as fourth substantial question of law is concerned, it is pertinent to note that under section 145(1) of the Act, the income chargeable under the head Profits and Gains of Business shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system

MILAN THEATRES P LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(3)(2), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

income on the basis of the dates of sale agreements, irrespective of project completion. This approach is fundamentally flawed in law. Section 145(1) of the Act mandates that income chargeable under the heads “Profits and gains of business or profession” and “Income from other sources\" shall be computed

COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT ORGANISATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 27(1), MUMBAI, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Commercial Transport Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Organisation Income Tax - 27(1), 1St Floor, B 112, Navi Mumbai Arjun Centre, Govandi East, Mumbai - 400088 (Pan: Aagfc6565J) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077843575(1), Dated 26.06.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, 27(1), Mumbai U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Hon Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.1,07,12,240/- Made By The Ld Ao, As Estimated Income, After Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The I.T Act 1961. The Addition Of Rs.1,07,12,240/- Being Not Warranted By Facts & In Law May Kindly Be Deleted.

correctness of the account b) Satisfaction about the completeness of the accounts c) Regularity in following the method of accounting provided in section 145(1) or accounting standard as notified under section 145(2). 4.1. He thus noted that in the present case, completeness and correctness of accounts is compromised

RAJESH MOHAN SINGH HAJARI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohan Singh Hajari, Income Tax Officer, Type 4 B/293, Ward-16(3)(1), Dr. Bam Hosp., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Byculla, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aazph4367E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Bandi For Revenue : Shri Kavan N. Limbasiya, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 21-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Of Reopening The Case Under Section 148 Of The It Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao, The Reassessment Order

fact that I have been offering my Income on actual Cash receipt basis, which inter alia is as per accounting provided in section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in some of the cases as given in chart are more then the amount reflected in 26AS

SENGHANI AND ASSOCIATES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsenghani & Associates, 808, 8Th Floor Ecstacy Business Park, Jsd Road Mulund West, Mumbai – 400080 ............... Appellant Pan: Acafs6377C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 28(3)(1), Ito, Vashi Railway Station Building, ……………… Respondent Navi Mumbai

erred in taxing INR 1,00,25,000 on receipt basis instead of accrual basis which is regular method accounting in accordance with section 145(1) of the Act. Thus the additions made by Learned AO confirmed by Hon'ble CIT (A) be deleted. 3. On the facts & circumstances