“reassessment proceedings”

Janardan Namdev Gawali, Ambarnath vs. ITO Ward2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawaljanardan Namdev Gawali Palegaon, Anandnagar, Ambarnath Thane, Kalyan - Dombivali Maharashtra - 421502 ............... Appellant Pan: Apgpg9048B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), J-63/12 Addl., Murbad Rani Mansion ……………… Respondent Industrial Area Midc, 2Nd Floor Murbad Road Kalyan, Kalyan – Dombivali Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Ms. Mamta Watwani Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

adopt the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981, despite the land being held since prior to that date. 4 5. That the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and the notice issued under section 148 dated 30.03.2018 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the reasons recorded

Jora Ram Mali, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)Mumbai, Mumbai

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

correct and authenticated to the extent assessee paid ‘on-money’ in cash, no addition can be made and even otherwise during the entire reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenario no addition is warranted

Jora Ram Mali, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)Mumbai, Mumbai

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

correct and authenticated to the extent assessee paid ‘on-money’ in cash, no addition can be made and even otherwise during the entire reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenario no addition is warranted

Nikhil Raghuvir Kshirsagar, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnikhil Raghuvir Kshirsagar Vs Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai 404, Neelesh Society, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vidyalaya Marg, Mulund East, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- Mumbai-400081 400051 Pan:Aykpk2549N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv. & Ms. Vinita Nara, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) 57 (For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A), Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2015-16, Date Of Order 12.11.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department (For 2

fact situations. In the present case, the impugned notice under section 148 was issued on 15/04/2022, well beyond the legally permissible period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings lack jurisdiction from their inception. The Ld. DR, despite relying on the orders of the revenue authorities, was unable to produce any contrary decision ... become purely academic and need not be adjudicated on merits. We therefore 4 ITA 7529/Mum/2025 Nikhil Raghuvir Kshirsagar hold that the reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 is invalid, and the reassessment order passed pursuant thereto is liable to be quashed. As the issue is decided on the jurisdictional legal

Aparna Biswas, Mumbai vs. Ld. AO, Ld AO National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

designated superior authority. Where the approval itself is not validly granted in the manner known to law, the very foundation of the reassessment proceedings collapses. 8. In the present case, once it is an admitted position that the so-called approval under section 151 does not bear the digital signature ... eyes of law. Absence of a duly authenticated approval renders the issuance of notice under section 148 without jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 are vitiated and cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the aforesaid jurisdictional defect, the notice issued under section

Anthonette Joaquim Anthony, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

ITA No.6531/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Devanand Amarnath Parkar, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra East

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

total revamp by the Finance Act, 2021, the amendments brought in by the Finance Act 2021 led to several jurisdictional issues in respect of reassessment proceeding for which the matter travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the lead case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal ... discussed whereby the notice issued u/s.148 under the new regime was held to be barred by limitation and was thus, quashed resulting in the reassessment proceedings as well as the reassessment order as bad in law. Relevant extracts from the said order are reproduced for the sake of ready reference

Bhushan Vasant Parelkar, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

regime is barred by limitation and hence bad in law, liable to be quashed, resulting in 13 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar AY 2013-14 impugned reassessment proceedings as well as the impugned reassessment order bad in law. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 12. In the result, appeal

Nevin H. Bharwani, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailnevin H. Bharwani, 5Th Floor, Noor-E-Rehmat, 50 B.J. Road, Bandra West, Mumbai ............... Appellant Pan : Alrpb8270H V/S Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward – 1(2)(1), Room No.530D, 5Th Floor, ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Asif Karmali Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr

144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 2 “1. REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS: 1.1 The Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as "the DRP") failed to appreciate that the Income tax Officer (International

Sudhir Motiram Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalsudhir Motiram Patil C/O Hukumchand Jain, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400013 ............... Appellant Pan: Avvpp1813G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, ……………… Respondent Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer. After considering the submissions of the assessee filed during the reassessment proceeding, the AO passed the order dated 11/04/2023 under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee ... Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Accordingly, as per the assessee, the Revenue has not followed the mandatory provisions of the Act while initiating the reassessment proceedings, and the sanction of the Specified Authority is not in conformity with the law prevalent at the time of grant of sanction

Aeon Commercial India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai, Mumabi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Akshay Deepak Talim, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

under section 148 of the Act after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings, resulting in the impugned addition, are bad in law. 4. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note the provisions of the Act, which ... section 148A, during the relevant period, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01/04/2021, laid down the new procedure for the initiation of reassessment proceedings under the Act, constituting a ITA No.5130/MUM/2025 (AY. 2017-18) Fs | paradigm shift from the procedure prevailing prior to the aforesaid amendment

Govind Mansharam Dingwa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 22(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

information suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment alleging any escapement of income. Failure to do so results in rendering the entire reassessment proceedings a nullity. iii. Your Honour's attention is invited to CBDT instruction F. No. 299/10/2022-Dir (Inv. III)/611 dated 01/08/2022 wherein at para

Govind Mansharam Dingwa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 22(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

information suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment alleging any escapement of income. Failure to do so results in rendering the entire reassessment proceedings a nullity. iii. Your Honour's attention is invited to CBDT instruction F. No. 299/10/2022-Dir (Inv. III)/611 dated 01/08/2022 wherein at para

Business India Publications Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbusiness India Publications Vs Income Tax Officer Limited. Income Tax Office-3(1)(2) Room 21 Framroz Court, 4Th Floor, No.666 Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Marine Drive, Next To Sea Mumbai-400020 Green Hotel, Maharashtra- 400020 Pan:Aaacb4739Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.Ar)

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, the reassessment notice issued under Sec.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reassessment proceedings being without jurisdiction and invalid in law the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have been annulled the reassessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing ... Assessing Officer has nowhere disposed of the objections dated 26.11.2018 filed by the appellant to the reasons recorded for reopening, before proceeding with the reassessment proceedings and hence the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have annulled the reassessment order on the ground that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and invalid