DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

VIPENDRA RAVINDRA MANDAL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

gain. The AO, however, allowed the claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act and also allowed deduction of deduction under Section 54 of the Act and also allowed deduction of deduction under Section 54 of the Act and also allowed deduction of ₹75,000/- towards interest on borrowed capital. towards interest on borrowed capital. 2.2 On appeal

DEVANSHI SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardevanshi Sharma Ito, Ward 34(1)(1) 216, 2Nd Floor, Kautaliya Bhawan, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No. 18, Vs. 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Cmvpk 6007 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.10.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Legal Issue, Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) As Also The Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act. Since, The Aforesaid Issue Raised By The Assessee Is A Purely Legal & Jurisdictional Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter & Affecting The Validity Of The Proceedings Initiated U/S. 147 Of The Act, We Are Inclined To Address The Issue At The Very Outset.

Gain (‘STCG’ for short) or Short Term Capital Loss (‘STCL’ for short). Based on such information, the A.O. reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act under the old regime by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 28.04.2021. By virtue of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors v Ashish

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the business was a subject matter of consideration by the business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing sing sing Officer Officer Officer during during during the the the original original original assessment assessment assessment proceedings leading to an order dated

CYRUS PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

capital gains on sale of shares of Anuh Pharma Ltd. which was believed to be a Penny Stock by the revenue. The return was P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Cyrus Patel, Mumbai initially processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO initiated reassessment in the case of the assessee vide notice dated

ACIT - 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RISHABH DIAMOND PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross\nObjection by the assessee is partly allowed

capital gains head.\nHence, the audit objection was accepted leading to re-opening of the\nassessment of the income of Petitioner.\n(g) Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ashish\nAgarwal (supra) the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 21st April\n2021 issued under the old law was treated as notice under

MURTUZA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes, whereas ground no.3 stands dismissed

capital gains accordingly.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148A", "148", "143(2)", "142(1)", "50C", "48", "49", "54", "54F", "133(6)", "55(2)(a)" ], "issues

DCIT - 19(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI vs. DISHANT DEEPAK SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

148A dated 26.05.2022 was issued as to why his case should not be reopened for was issued as to why his case should not be reopened for was issued as to why his case should not be reopened for A.Y. 2016- -17. In response, the assessee assessee filed response vide letter dated 13.06.2022 in support of the alleged vide letter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MUNISH FINANCIAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 are dismissed and C

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains. The said notice become deemed to be a notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act, as per the directions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19-1, MUMBAI vs. MUNISH FINANCIAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 are dismissed and C

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains. The said notice become deemed to be a notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act, as per the directions

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KAUSHAL YASHWANT AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

sections": [ "147", "143(3)", "45", "2(47)", "2(14)", "148", "148A", "263", "6", "19", "20", "21", "22", "23", "24", "48", "1990" ], "issues": "Whether compensation received in lieu of 'right to sue' is a capital receipt and not taxable as capital gains

RANJANBEN CHUNILAL GADA,MUMBAI vs. TIO 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148A (d) dated 29-07-2022 itself is passed without\nproviding copies of information / documents / material evidences\nrelating to alleged accommodation entry of Rs.70,11,750/-, violating\nthe directions of Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Ashish\nAgrawal.\n(ii) The only information provided is “Case Related Information Detail”\nsheet downloaded from INSIGHT Portal. Even that was suffering\nfrom

ARIHANT ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gains at Rs. 22,92,130 and adding the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, in the present case, is bad in law as theorder dated 22/04/2022 was passed under section 148A

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JMP SECURITIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gains from transactions in penny stocks, notice under section 148 of the Act was originally issued on 28/06/2021. 3 ITA No. 3722/MUM/2024 & CO No. 165/MUM/2024 (A.Y.: 2016-17) JMP Securities Pvt Ltd 7. Subsequently, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s Ashish Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022,original

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS ) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

148A(d) was issued to the assessee on 23/06/2022 as a consequence of which notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 23/06/2022 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) was issued on 06/02/2023 under section 143 (2) was issued on 15/05/2023, along with the show cause notice dated 18/05/2023

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

148A(d) was issued to the assessee on 23/06/2022 as a consequence of which notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 23/06/2022 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) was issued on 06/02/2023 under section 143 (2) was issued on 15/05/2023, along with the show cause notice dated 18/05/2023