JORD ENGINEERS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Amit Shukla ()

condone the delay of 141 days in filing appeal before him and also in confirming the addition made by the AO. 2 I.T.A. No.644 & 718/Mum/2015 3. The Ld A.R submitted that the impugned assessment was reopened

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

delay due to genuine reasons due to genuine reasons, same is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

SHREE SWAMY SAMARTH PRASSANA OSHIWARA (E) UNITS CHS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

reopening assessment us. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tax Act, 1961. 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee was not required to file the return

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

reopened the assessment on wrong facts, without proper sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and without complying the provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the Act. without complying the provisions of Section

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

reopened the assessment on wrong facts, without proper sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and sanction from the prescribed authority and on borrowed opinion and without complying the provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the Act. without complying the provisions of Section

NAVEEN KISHOR MOHNOT,MUMBAI vs. ITO-25(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenaveen Kishor Mohnot V. Income Tax Officer –25(3)(5) 3Rd Floor, Monami Apartments C-10, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor Behind Chandan Cinema, Juhu Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400049 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Abgpj1360D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayant Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, we observe that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.07.2011 declaring total income of ₹.6, 67,900/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has dealt in sale and purchase of shares of M/s. VAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, which is a penny

DCIT 11(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SURAKSHA REALTY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6258//Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Suraksha Realty Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 11(2)(2) 3, Narayan Building, 23 L.N. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Road Dadar (E), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 014 Mumbai-20 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aalcs7864A प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 28/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 6258/Mum/2017 For Ay 2011-12) M/S Suraksha Realty Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 3, Narayan Building, 23 L.N. Income Tax, Circle 11(2)(2) Road Dadar (E), Mumbai-400 Vs. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 014 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08-04-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2019

condoned the delay and admit this cross objection and adjudicate upon. 5. The first issue in this appeal of cross objection of the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in reopening the assessment

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2014 was served to the assessee company. In response to the said notice, a request was made by the assessee company vide letter dated 02.04.2014 to supply a copy of the reason recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act. The request of the assessee company

GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD ( FORMERLY GTC INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, on the grounds as discussed above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

condone the delay, and admit this appeal for adjudication, after taking consent of the parties. 8.1 In this appeal also, the learned Counsel has challenged validity of reopening of the assessment

GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD ( FORMERLY GTC INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, on the grounds as discussed above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

condone the delay, and admit this appeal for adjudication, after taking consent of the parties. 8.1 In this appeal also, the learned Counsel has challenged validity of reopening of the assessment

PINKAL DILIP BHANSALI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12

delay being being being unintentional unintentional unintentional and and and supported supported supported by by by bona bona bona fide fide fide Pinkal Dilip Bhansali circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

assessment, fully and truly. As to what are material or primary facts would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no universal formula may be attempted. The legal or factual inferences from those primary or material facts are for the Assessing Officer to draw in order to complete the assessment and it is not for the assessee

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

assessment, fully and truly. As to what are material or primary facts would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no universal formula may be attempted. The legal or factual inferences from those primary or material facts are for the Assessing Officer to draw in order to complete the assessment and it is not for the assessee

SUREAKSHA DB REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 30(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

reopening and passing of the order are found to be without merit and hence rejected.‖ 010. On the validity of the return of income filed under section 139(1) manually, he upheld the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed that the return is an invalid return holding as under :- ―17. Now coming to the issue whether return

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

condone the delay in filing the\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A).\n4. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a company\ndealing in listed and unlisted securities. For your under\nconsideration assessee did not file any return of income and\ntherefore the Ld.AO issued notice under section 148 of the act on\n22/03/2019. The Ld.AR submitted that during

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

reopened u/s 148 of the Act by issuing notice dated 26/08/2019 for assessment year 2017-18 and 13/03/2024 for assessment year 2018-19. After following the due procedure under the new provisions of the Act, the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO, disallowed the claim of assessee towards CSR fund

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

reopened u/s 148 of the Act by issuing notice dated 26/08/2019 for assessment year 2017-18 and 13/03/2024 for assessment year 2018-19. After following the due procedure under the new provisions of the Act, the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO, disallowed the claim of assessee towards CSR fund

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

delay is condoned. 4. So far as, the merits of the cross objection is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding the reopening of assessment