“borrowed satisfaction”

Nova Elevators Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-13(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnova Elevators Private Vs Ito -13(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Maharashtra-400020 402, Dimple Apts., 4E, Asha Nagar, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101 Pan: Aadcn0305K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Patel, Ca Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr Ar) Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2026 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)-51, Mumbai [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15, Date Of Order 12.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Income-Tax Officer Ward-13(1)(1), Mumbai

Assessing Officer erred in the reopening under section 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded were based merely on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing/ DCIT (Central Circle) without any independent application of mind or a live nexus to the assessee's own transaction. Accordingly, the reassessment is invalid ... assessment beyond jurisdiction a. The Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts in reopening the assessment under section 148 merely on borrowed satisfaction, without any independent application of mind to the assessee's own transactions and factual records. b. The reasons recorded for reopening were not furnished

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Once the basis for reopening fails, the reassessment cannot be sustained in law. 4.3 It was also contended that the reopening is based on borrowed satisfaction, as the Assessing Officer merely reproduced information allegedly received from external sources without any independent examination or formation of belief on the facts

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Once the basis for reopening fails, the reassessment cannot be sustained in law. 4.3 It was also contended that the reopening is based on borrowed satisfaction, as the Assessing Officer merely reproduced information allegedly received from external sources without any independent examination or formation of belief on the facts

N N Sippy Productions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarn.N. Sippy Productions V/S. Income Tax Officer – 13(1)(1) Private Limited बनाम 225, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. A4, Shalimar Chs, Road, Mumbai – 400 054, Santacruz, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400054, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcn6412N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

erred in law and/or on facts in solely relying upon the information received from investigation wing so that action of AO is merely upon borrowed satisfaction and not on his independent satisfaction. 1.3. The Ld CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts by upholding action

Mystical Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalι.Τ.Α. No.5222/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2011-12 Mystical Pvt Ltd Constructions A 603, A1 Akbar Bldg, Pe Road, Momin Nagar, Jogeswari (W), Mumbai - 400102 Pan - Aaccn5191N (Appellant) Vs Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1) Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Simran Dhawan A/W Mr. Ravi Gantara Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 06.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

reason to believe' that the income of the appellant has escaped assessment and on the contrary, it is a clear case of borrowed satisfaction and non-application of own mind on pre-concluded text received and in the absence of any new/tangible material brought on record ... against the concerns ofBhoomi Group. Therefore, it appears from the records that the AO of Ekta and Bhoomi Group merely acted on the borrowed satisfaction from Investigation wing, without making any enquiries in the case of Bhoomi Group in the first place and thus AO of the assessee company proceeded

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

assessee challenged both the validity of reopening as well as the addition on merits. It was contended that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction, approval under section 151 was mechanical, and the assessee was not afforded opportunity of 4 ITA No. 5381/Mum/2025 Aeon Commercial India Private Limited cross-examination

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

passed u/s. 147 rws. 1448 of the Act as invalid and void ab initio as the reason recorded for re-opening the assessment is borrowed satisfaction and not proper satisfaction which is to be made by the Ld. AD before issue of Notice u/s-148. 1.7 The Ld. CIT (A) erred

Bhavana Suresh Chauhan, Borivali West vs. Ward42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhavana Suresh Chauhan Ito, Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai 703, Kguru Residency, 1 Babai Naka, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Dharamdas Marg, Borivali West, Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400097. [Pan No. Adipc1169K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

loan received is Rs. 20,11,178 .When Bhavana Suresh Chauhan actually it was 10 lakh only showing complete non application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there was no “reason to believe” and no tangible material to justify reopening ... assessment, and that the initiation of proceedings was based on mere suspicion, change of opinion, or borrowed satisfaction. 6. The learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that the approval/sanction obtained u/s 151 was mechanical, without proper application of mind, rendering the entire reopening invalid. 7. The learned

Bysol Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening of the assessment and the assessment as completed is illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction, on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind, violative of the principal of natural justice and which deserves to be quashed as per law and in the interest

Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana (HUF), Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3)(1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

submitted that the reopening is based on suspicion, surmises and in absence of any evidence. Further the entire reopening of the case based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO failed to provide

Vinodkumar Ghisulal Shah(HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvinod Kumar Ghisulal Shah Vs. Ito, Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai. 2Nd (Huf). Room No.205, Floor, Piramal A-101, P2 Floor, Vijaya Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai- Residency, Chiwda Gully, 400012. Lalbaugh, Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No: Aaghv3367R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Mumbai has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction merely on the basis of ITA No.4172/MUM/2025/AY 2012-13 Vinodkumar Ghisulal Shah (HUF) information received from DGIT-2(Inv), Mumbai without any independent application of mind. 4. In the facts

Moxa Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankarito – 5(2)(1) Vs. Moxa Diamond Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 72/B-12, Tikam House, Road, New Marine Lines, Jss Road, Opera House, Mumbai – 400020 Girgaon S.O, Mumbai – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Aagcm1959H (Applicant) (Respondent) Moxa Diamond Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 5(2)(1) 72/B-12, Tikam House, Jss Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Opera House, Girgaon Road, New Marine S.O, Mumbai – 400004. Lines, Mumbai – 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aagcm1959H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 26.02.2024

erred in confirming reopening of the case whereas Ld. A.O. reopened the case on the basis of vague reasons, borrowed satisfaction and non- application of Mind. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld A.O. erred in reopening of the case u/s 148 and overridden specific