DCIT 14.1.1, MUMBAI vs. AADI INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) R.W.S263 U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

u/s. 263 of the Act can only be initiated by the Ld. Pr.CIT suo moto and it cannot be revised on the behest of the any assessing authority under the Act. In the given case the revision proceedings were initiated on the behest and reference made by DCIT, in this regard he relied on the decision of the Vinay Pratap

NAGJI KESHAVJI RITA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly partly allowed

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

bogus. A similar issue was for consideration before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central), Ludhiana (117 taxmann.com 40). In this case, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction under section 80-I only qua the manufactured goods exported out of India. Appeal was filed claiming deduction under section

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

u/s 147 of the Act based on certain\ninformation by the Investigation wing of the Department that she\navailed entries of bogus purchases from a few parties i.e Rare Diamond,\nKALASH,AADI etc. aggregating to Rs.2,14,04,724/-. The AO observed\nthat these concerns belonged to Rajendra Jain Group who were\nEntry/Accommodation bill facilitators of fraudulent financial\ntransactions

JAYSHREE RAVI SANCHETI,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

263 is bad in law since the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 itself was invalid and non-est; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. CIT erred in passing the revision order u/s.263 though the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 is not erroneous and in so far is not prejudicial to interest

M/S. SIDDHARTH CARBOCHEM PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. PCIT , CIRCLE 1(3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blesiddharth Carbochem Products Ltd V. Pcit, Circle-1(3)(1) 42 B Wing, 4Th Floor, Mittal Tower Room No- 330, Aayakar Bhawan Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aabcs1437P

revision proceedings U/S 263 is time barred 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in holding that the assessment order date 25th December, 2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

AQUA TECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)-3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

revised. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred on facts and in law by invoking Section 263 of the Act solely due to mere change of opinion without any new material on record or without first demonstrating as to how such opinion

INFINITY CARS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT03 CENTRAL MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarinfinity Cars Private V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Limited, 12/A, 1St Floor, बनाम Income Tax– 03 Central, Lotus Cinema Bldg., Worli Mumbai, Room No. 441, 4 Th S.O. Mumbai - 400 018, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Maharashtra C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci5671H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

u/s 263 of the Act by the Learned CIT and allow the grounds and additional grounds raised by the assessee for all the asst years. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.” P a g e | 13 A.Y. 2019-20 Infinity Cars Private Limited 6.2 Likewise,in ITA Nos. 2752- 2754/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010- 11 M/s Nishita

CUPID DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s\n37 of the Act on account of unverified business purchases.\n3.1 The ld.PCIT on examination of the records found that the AO\nin order to verify the genuineness of purchases made by the assessee\ncompany issued notices u/s.133(6) of the Act to several parties from\nwhom purchases were shown to have been made, out of which the\nassessee

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

263 against the order of order of the AO passed itself being bad in law on various the AO passed itself being bad in law on various counts the review of the order also being bad in law and counts the review of the order also being bad in law and counts the review of the order also being

MR. ANMOL GOVINDRAM SEKHRI,BANDRA ARCADE, NANDI GULLY, OPP BANDRA RAILWAY ST vs. CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmrs. Suneeta Sekhri V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of (Legal Heir Of Mr. Anmol बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 16(2), Govindram Sekhri), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Ground Floor, Bandra Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Nandi Gully, Opp. Bandra Railway Station, Bandra(West), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alhps9957L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

bogus LTCG and STCG. The ld.PCIT, however, proposed to set aside the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act in view of above observations. 3.2 In response to the show cause notice issued in this regard, assessee submitted a detailed reply contesting the proposed action. The ld.PCIT observed further that merely because the assessee had submitted bank statements, copy

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GRACE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

revised assessment after giving both the parties an opportunity to substantiate their respective contentions. High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Prakash Chand Nahta Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax (2008) 218 CTR (MP) 367 AO having not summoned the person from whom the assessee is said to have purchased goods, under s. 131 for cross-examination in spite of the request

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

u/s 263 it has been alleged that source of purchase and sale of transactions remained to be verified.\n9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, or delete any grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”\n11. During the course of hearing before us the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the reassessment proceedings

AGNELO GUSTAVO EUGENIO RODRIGUES,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 24 1 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

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

revised GP calculation was self-serving and appeared to be an attempt to reconcile figures retrospectively without verifiable primary evidence. The AO's analysis, based on the records and inquiries, reasonably pointed to inflation of purchases. Given the cumulative evidence i.e.untraceability of suppliers despite diligent efforts by the department and lack of quantity-wise stock records, and significant discrepancies

KAUSHAL ANIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the Act dated 13.03.2025 is bad-in-law and\nliable to be quashed.\n2. The Ld. Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the AO has verified and\nexamined all the issues more particularly in respect of purchases made\nfrom various parties including from M/s. Nymphea Trademart P. Ltd.\n[NTPL' in short] and disallowed purchases made from NTPL

M/S. INNOVATORS FACADE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, -1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrim/S Innovators Facade V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Systems Limited Mumbai, बनाम Income Tax, Thane – 1, B-Wing, B-65/204 Jaydeep Chsl, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road Shanti Nagar Mira Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial (East), Thane – 401 107, Estate, Thane(West), Thane – Maharashtra 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci7326Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Revision order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Thane - 1 [hereinafter referred to ‘PCIT’] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SKY GEM, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

bogus purchases of Rs.2,46,98,049. Subsequently, the learned PCIT- 33, Mumbai vide revision order dated 29/03/2019 passed under section 263 set aside the aforesaid assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on the basis that the same is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NK Proteins

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAKET INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

bogus purchases, o work X DEPAPenses sub-contract expenses, job found/seized. and labour and unsecured loans were 4.3.4 It is a well settled law that in the unabated assessment order, no addition u/s 153A can be made M/s. Saket Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. unless there is some incriminating material with respect to the addition made

AUGMONT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanaugmont Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle-6(1)(2), 201, A/B & 202, 2Nd Floor, Trade Vs. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar World, D-Wing, Kamala Mills Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Compound, S. B. Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400 003. Pan: Aagcr3007D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

bogus ITC credit (CBIC Investigation)/Business purchase, Non compliance to income computation and disclosure and stock valuation. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued from time to time. However, in response to the notice, assessee submitted the relevant documents to substantiate the 80G certification which were found in order and the assessment was completed