SANDEEP P. PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -16, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

condone the delay and admit the appeal.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income tax - 16, (hereinafter referred to as the Principal CIT) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessment order dated 28-11-2017 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous

AADI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT -14, MUMBAI

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the appeal on merits. 6. Brief facts of the case are, assessee has filed return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of ₹.1,99,89,697/- and summary assessment u/s. 143(1) of the Act was made on 29.08.2011. Subsequently, information received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit

VINAYAK MHATRE,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 26 , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

revised for the said reason. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the Pr. CIT, therefore, vide his order passed u/s 263, dated 23.03.2017 he held the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 147, dated 25.03.2015 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s

VINAYAK MHATRE,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 26 , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

revised for the said reason. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the Pr. CIT, therefore, vide his order passed u/s 263, dated 23.03.2017 he held the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 147, dated 25.03.2015 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s

VINAYAK MHATRE,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 26 , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

revised for the said reason. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the Pr. CIT, therefore, vide his order passed u/s 263, dated 23.03.2017 he held the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 147, dated 25.03.2015 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s

M/S. SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

u/s 263 of the Act. The same was dismissed by the ITAT as withdrawn.\nThereafter, the present has been filed after a delay of 1114 days. It was submitted\nthat the delay was purely technical and due to circumstances beyond control of\nthe appellant. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in case

M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT ( EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1689 /Mum/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Alimaan Charitable Commissioner Of Income Trust, 206, Rewa Chambers, Vs. Tax (Exemptions),R. No. New Marine Lines, 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mumbai – 400 020 Chambers, Lal Baug,Parel,Mumbai – 400 012 Pan No. Aaata2536P (Assessee ) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Firojandhyaruzina, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 28/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2021

u/s 263 of the Act therein set-aside the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 28.06.2017, with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has assailed the order passed by the CIT under Sec.263 of the Act, dated 20.03.2020 before

OMKAILASH FINANCE & INVESTMENT P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Om Kailash Finance & Principal Commissioner Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax – 4 (Pr. 101/A, Ritvi Park, Cit-4), 629, 6Th Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (West), Mumbai – 400 054 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No.Aaacoo496P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R Revenue By : Shri R.K. Sahu, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 (For Short “Pr.Cit”), Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 18.02.2020, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W Sec 147 Of The Act Dated 28.12.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Pr.Cit Grossly Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without

revised u/s 263 of the Act. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that the „bad debts‟ to the tune of Rs. 48,43,750/- were debited under the head “administrative expenses” and a provision for doubtful debt for the said amount was made in the „balance sheet‟. It was further stated by the assessee that the provision

RASHI PERIPHERALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

condone the delay. 3. Secondly, from the Order of PCIT, it can be seen that Order under section 143(1) passed by CPC disallowing the decision under section 80JJAA due to delay in filing Form 10DA also was not considered by AO. The Ld.AO has not applied his mind to this aspect, without raising this issue of delay (passed

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condonation of the delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready refer delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready refer delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready reference, it is relevant to reproduce the affidavit filed by the managing director of relevant to reproduce the affidavit filed by the managing director

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

condonation of the delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready refer delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready refer delay in filing the appeal by 272 days. For ready reference, it is relevant to reproduce the affidavit filed by the managing director of relevant to reproduce the affidavit filed by the managing director

DNYANSHWAR NIVRUTI TALPADE,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharydhyaneshwar Nivrutti Vs. Principal Commissioner Talapade, Plot No. 207, Of Income Tax, 6 Th Floor, Nirmal Nagar At Post Ashar I.T. Park, Road Asangaon, Shahpur, Number 162 Nehru Nagar Shahpur Maharashtra - Wagle Ind. Estate, 421601 Thane (W) 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ackpt2532N Appellant .. Respondent

condonation of delay vide letter dated 31.05.2022 and affidavit dated 11.11.2022. The assessee has stated that the case of the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee scrutiny assessment was completed u/s 143(3) in physical mode. However, thereafter the revision proceedings were initiated u/s 263

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CICLE-8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has raised the additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of revision order as under: 1. The appellant submits that the notice u/s 263

M/S. C M BRIGHT BARS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-5, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

revision proceeding u/s 263 of the Act was issued\nby the PCIT, Mumbai on 05/03/2019 against the assessment order dated\n27/12/2016. That on 25/03/2019, the PCIT, Mumbai had passed the order\nu/s 263 and accordingly issued the direction for assessment.\n9] That on 25/06/2019, the Ld AO had passed the assessment order u/s 144\nr.w.s 263

JAYEM REALTY MANAGEMENT PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMM. OF INCOME TAX-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., V. Pr.Cit Recondo Compound Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor Inside Municipal Asphalt Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaccj0004G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

u/s 263. The same are also enclosed in the paper book. Therefore, provision of section 68 cannot be applied in AY 2010-11, as the section applies in the year when amount gets credited. The assessee further submits that; …. To tax the share capital/ premium received by the closely held company was introduced from AY 2013-14 with prospective effect

HATHWAY INVESTMENT P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -12, , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1599/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Hathway Investments Private Limited. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corner Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054. Pan: Aaach-1675-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-12, Mumbai, Room No.127, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The delay in filing of appeal has been attributed to the unprecedented situation caused by COVID-19 Pandemic. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking suo-motu cognisance of the hardship caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic to the litigants extended the period of limitation under General Law of Limitation and under Special

MUKESH BHOORMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT - 19, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. PCIT had validly assumed revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

HASU EXPORTERS,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX-17, MUMBAI

In the result, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under section 263 on the issue of LTCG is bad and uncalled for

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehasu Exporters Vs. Pr. Cit-17 Room No. 39, 1St Floor Room No. 120, 1St 94, Kansara Chawl, Floor, Kautilya Kalbadevi Road, Bhavan, C-41 To 43, G Mumbai – 400002. Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfh7119J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Act, in spite of the fact that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend

AHA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Aha Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Circle 6(1)(1), Unit No.404, New Udyog Mandir No.2 Aaykar Bhavan, Mogul Lane, Mahim West, Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Mumbai-400016 New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs 6404E Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (Cit- Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. Briefly stated, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee had filed its return of income on 13.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.13,29,01,477/-. The return so filed by the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and in course of assessment