TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 263 dated 28/12/2015 to revise the assessment\norder passed by the ld. AO dated 09/12/2013 on the same very\nissue. In his show-cause notice, he has observed that order\npassed by the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest\nof the Revenue in view of the following reasons:-\ni) The Assessing Officer has failed to take

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

revision order on two counts. Firstly Firstly, according to him, the Ld. PCIT has invoked Explanation the Ld. PCIT has invoked Explanation-2 to section 263 of the 2 to section 263 of the Act without referring the same referring the same in the show cause notice issue the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act, which

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

263\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), by the National Faceless\nAppeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2011-12.\n2. All the ground raised by the revenue are interrelated and\ninterconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A)\nin deleting the additions made u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore we\nhave decided

INDUR THANWERDAS DADLANI,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-42, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed without any order as to cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarindur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. Cit Flat No. 4604, The Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, Mp Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar Bb Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aacpd5262D (Applicant) (Respondent)

revision u/s 263 of the Act in order to substitution of his view for that of the AO. Since the AO in the facts of the present case has after considering the various details and explanations submitted by the assessee with regard to IFOS and capital gains

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

revised face value. The genuinity/existence of the companies of which shares were acquired/sold was also not doubted as they were all traded on recognized stock exchange. In nut shell the source of credit of amounts and the nature of transaction was well established with documentary evidences which have not been controverted or proved false. The only objection of the learned

ANAND MELLARAM ISSRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

Revision is held to be valid. [S. S.10(38), 45, 263] S.10(38), 45, 263] The assessee had purchased 50,000 shares of the Surabhi The assessee had purchased 50,000 shares of the Surabhi The assessee had purchased 50,000 shares of the Surabhi Chemicals and Investment Ltd for Rs.1,00,000/ Chemicals and Investment Ltd for Rs.1

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 ()

u/s 263 on issue when the matter for the same issue is pending before the CIT appeals and the order cannot be revised under section 263 on this issue specially when the issues is the subject matter of appeal and failed to appreciate that The issue of not allowing cost of acquisition and head of income has been appealed before

COMPUTER MEDIA DEALERS ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Computer Media Dealers Cit(Exemption), Association, Room No. 601, Cumballa Hill, Vs. 22-D, Motlibai House, S.A. Brelvi Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Road, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatc 0225 F Appellant Respondent

revision order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(E)’] for assessment year 2017-18, wherein he has set aside the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer dated 02.03.2023. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: Computer Media Dealers Association Computer Media Dealers Association

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

263. Braj Kishore Singh 19. On the other hand the ld DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that here in this case is not a case of letter of allotment wherein, the assessee has been specifically allotted or given right in the said flats by the said letter but merely a letter of intent which

MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

revise the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dt. 07.06.2021, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Our submission During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) the learned Assessing Officer has required details of large share premium received by the assessee

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

Capital Gain shown by the assessee is not a genuine one and therefore the exemption claimed u/s. 10(38) of Rs.2,60,46,279/- is rejected and the said amount is assessed to tax as income from other source as cash credit u/s 68 and brought to tax. This addition is liable for tax u/s 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s.271

AGARWAL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalagarwal Holdings Private Ltd. 211, 2Nd Floor Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Road Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059 ............... Appellant Pan: Aauca5094K V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 ……………… Respondent Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

Capital Gain could have been possibly assessed under the head "business income". 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in passing an order u/s 263 setting aside order passed u/s 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue without appreciating the facts of the case, nature of business of the appellant, the process of formation

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

u/s 115JB of ₹16,803,01,10,106/- passed under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act dated 12th February, 2019, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of enquiry as per explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act. He set aside it and the learned Assessing Officer

SUNBEAM MONOCHEM P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita No. 524 & 525/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Sunbeam Monochem (P) Ltd., Acit, Circle-8(2)(2), 201/B Runwal & Omkar E- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Square, Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Mumbai-400020. Singnal, Eastern Express Highway, Sion (E) Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aabcs 8172 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mayur Makadia, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

Capital Gains, if any, or there would be a resultant decrease in the Gains, if any, or there would be a resultant decrease in the Gains, if any, or there would be a resultant decrease in the claim of depreciation. The Ld. AR demonstrated that, by claim of depreciation. The Ld. AR demonstrated that, by claim of depreciation

ACIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

revision jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is, the order of Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Both the conditions have to be satisfied simultaneously. In the instant case, the Revenue has failed to show that the assessment order is erroneous. Both the conditions for exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263

VIVEK AGNIHOTRI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

Capital Gains of Rs.26,73,600/- was determined. The Ld. AR also emphasized that the Pr.CIT sought to revise U/sec263 of the Act the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.02.2015 and the Pr.CIT has passed the revision order beyond the period of two years from the end of the financial year in which order

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

263 of\nthe Income-tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for the revenue\nwas that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider\nthis aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital\nexpenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order which apparently does\nnot give any reasons while allowing

COMSTAR MAURITIUS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (IT) MUMBAI-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Comstar Mauritius Limited Cit (It), Agarwal Vijay & Associates, 503, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Jolly Bhavan, No.1, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcc1225Q

revised. 03. The assessee is aggrieved and has raised following grounds of appeal:- “The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Mumbai 2 erred in passing order u/s 263 setting aside assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 01.03.2021 to make fresh assessment. 2. The learned Commissioner

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

capital gain on script M/s. Moryo Industries Ltd. (MIL) it was submitted that the assessee had purchased the 1,00,000 shares @25 per share through preferential allotment scheme from the company and he had paid Rs. 25.00,000- from its bank account on 16.10.2012 maintaining in ING Vysya bank by RTGS and said share allotted to assessee