RAJEEV BRIJBHUSHAN BHATNAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rajeev Brijbhushan Bhatnagar, Ito-28(2)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Chartered Accountants 16Th Floor, Commercial Complex, Vashi, D Wing, Trade World Tower, Navi Mumbai-400703. Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Acfpb 2967 G Appellant Respondent

271F which is settled under VSV Scheme 2020. Hence, the appeal filed against the assessment order is closed without passing the appeal filed against the assessment order is closed without passing the appeal filed against the assessment order is closed without passing any order under section 250 on grounds of appeal raised in that appeal any order under section

REKHA LAXMAN MANJIRAMANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD, 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rekha Laxman Manjiramani, National Faceless Appeal Centre, 104, Lloyds Estates, G Wing Near Delhi, Income-Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Vs. Vidyalankar College, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400037. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Anhpm 5246 N Appellant Respondent

section 69 of the IT Act. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO law, the NFAC erred

PREITY G ZINTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TAX WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Preity G Zinta Income Tax Officer, Int Tax, 403 Parishram, Ward 4(3)(1), Smt. Nergish Dutt Road, Mumbai Bandra West Vs. Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaapz2650B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita Nara, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R

271F of the Act.” 3. This is the second round of litigation by the assessee before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed pursuant to directions of ld. DRP u/s. 144C(5) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. Assessee is a non-resident individual working as a film actress. She filed her return of income on 26.06.2016 reporting total income

SUNIL SURESH RANE,DOMBIVLI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Suresh Rane Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 301 Amrita, Apts, Rajaji Kautilya Bhawan C41- Path Lane 43, Avenue 3, Near No.4 Dombivli Videsh Bhavan, G Block Mumbai - 421201 Bkc, Gilban Area, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Abtpr2589P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Aakash Parekh (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Ground No. 1: Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

section 148 of the Act in a standard format without striking off the inapplicable reasons or specifying the exact basis for reopening, thereby the use of a generic, unmodified template without application of mind renders the notice vague, nonspeaking, and invalid in law, as held in various judicial precedents and consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to such defective notice

SHASHIKANT KRISHNA SHETTY,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), KALYAN, KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain which is bad in law. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 27,50,000 on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the source of investment in FDR is sale of shop

PALLAVI KAMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Pallavi Kamal Shah Ito, Ward-30(1)(1), Mumbai A-601, Bhimsen Chs Ltd., Marve Vs Maharashtra-400051. Road, Malad West, Maharashtra - 400064. [Pan: Avops7447Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

271F, penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income as well as penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non- compliance of various notices. 3. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee filed additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Initially, the assessee challenged the addition on merit. However, the assessee filed additional

RAHUL SHRIKRISHNA DHARAP,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Rahul Shrikrishna Dharap Ito Ward 22(3)(1) Piramal Chambers, 00, Wardoli, Panvel, Mumbai-400020. Wavarle B.O, Panvel, Vs. Raigarh-410206. (Pan: Airpd2580P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Yash Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

sections 234A and 234B despite the fact that the addition itself is unjustified. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee did not file his return of income u/s. 139. Case of the assessee was taken

JAIKISHIN OMPRAKASH PAHUJA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN, MUMBAI

capital gain of Rs.\n62,297/- was offered to tax. Since no discrepancy was noticed in\nthis regard, no adverse inference was drawn on this issue.\n7. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made additions aggregating\nto Rs. 69,46,732/- under section 69 of the Act and completed the\nreassessment determining the total income of the assessee

VAIBHAV BHARGAVA,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

capital gains on sale of securities. For the year under consideration, the assessee missed filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act and as per the information received from the INSIGHT portal, the AO formed a I.T.A. No. 2540/Mum/2025 2 belief that the assessee has not disclosed certain transactions and hence has not filed his return of income

MOHAMED IMRAN MOHAMED SIDDIQUE KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Capital Gain of Rs.20,00,000/- and claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Act.\nb. The appellant received a gift of Rs.40,00,000/- from his mother through account payee cheques, which is exempt from tax\nc. The appellant disclosed turnover from business amounting to Rs.33,75,478/-\nin the return of income.\nThe Appellant most humbly prays that

MILLENNIUM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmillennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-3, Ground Floor, Ceejay House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcm6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee) laid out for or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or Profession shall be allowed in computing the Income chargeable under the head Profit and gains of business and Profession: Explanation2:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purpose of sub section