SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Him.

condonation of delay accompanied by supporting affidavit in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 Assessment Year 2017-2018 (SC). 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “I. The assessment order has been set-aside in total, to be made

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

148A(d) issued notice under section 148 dated 22.07.2022 re-opening the assessment of the assessee. The assessee did not file any return in response to the said notice also. The assessee however filed submissions in response to the various notices issued by the AO under section 142(1) of the 3 ITA No. 2764/Mum/2024 - Nisha Thomas Act. The assessee

ABHISHEK SANJEEV NADGERI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

148A(d) on 29/07/2022, rejecting the objections raised by the assessee with regard to the alleged bogus transaction. 2.3 The Ld.AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, on 29/07/2022. The assessment was completed under section 147 of the Act, by making addition of Rs. 7,47,709/- including income from other sources amounting to Rs.7,08,336/-, treated

SHAMBHAVEE SHASHIKANT KADAM,ANDHERI (WEST) vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. During the course of hearing the ld. AR raised two legal contentions with regard to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The first contention of the ld. AR is that the notice under section 148 is issued

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], inter- alia, for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. The present appeals are delayed by 144 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay

PRABHULAL KALJI DOSHI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

148A(d) dated 28/07/2022 as after 29/03/2022 same can be done in a faceless manner, therefore the reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 3. The Id CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO issued reopening notice u/s 148 on 28/07/2022, approval was required to be taken as per provisions of amended section 151 of the Act from Principal Chief

NARESH AMRATLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-27(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed allowed

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

148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 29.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said 29.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said 29.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said notice is barred notice is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to the by limitation as per the first

MR RAHAT MOHAMMED RIYAZUDDIN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

Condonation of delay of 236 days without appreciating the complete facts II. Reopening is bad in law: 2. The Id CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29/07/2022 is after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year 2017-18 and the income escapement is below

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

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 5. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the ground challenging the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) on merits. On the other hand, the assessee has filed the cross objection challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act.As the issues raised

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

148A and 3 Assessment Year 2015-2016 section 148 of the income-tax Act, 1961 ("ITA"), pursuant to which a return of income under section 148 was duly filed. 4. That subsequent to such filing, the Assessee did not receive any further communication or notice under section 142(1), section 143(2), any additional notice under section

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

148A(d) and also issuing the notice u/s. 148 without appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for t appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for t appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued

ITO, MUMBAI vs. HIMANSHU SARDA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarito,Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Himanshu Sarda Room No. 734, Kautilya 705/706, Shivalaya Residency Chs Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Ltd., Thakur Complex, 90 Feet Mumbai-400051 Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai- 400101 Pan: Flpps9753F Appellant Respondent C.O.410/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5862/Mum/2025 A.Y. :2017-18)

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 05.05.2023. 2. The registry inform that the cross-objection filed by the assessee with a delay for 37 days. The assessee explained the delay and filed the prayer for condonation of delay. We found there is sufficient cause for delay in filing the cross objection. Ld. DR had not made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHANTILAL CHIMANLAL SHETH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross-objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Delay condoned.\nHaving regard to the concession made by the petitioner-Department in the\ncase of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 on\n03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754), this Special Leave Petition would\nnot survive for further consideration.\nHence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.\nPending applications), if any, shall stand disposed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHANTILAL CHIMANLAL SHETH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross-objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Delay condoned.\nHaving regard to the concession made by the petitioner-Department in the\ncase of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 on\n03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754), this Special Leave Petition would\nnot survive for further consideration.\nHence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.\nPending applications), if any, shall stand disposed

BISHNUPRIYA BIJAYCHANDRA MAHANTY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Ito, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai 204 Plot 13/A Wing Siddhivinayak It-Office, Vashi Railway Vs. Chs, Sector 6, Ghansoli, Navi Station Building, Mumbai 400701, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Authroised Person Add: 218, Ratna High Street, Naranpura, Ahmedabad- 380013 Pan No. Btdpm 7308 A Appellant Respondent

148A(d) in in in appellant's appellant's appellant's case case case which which which is is is passed passed passed in in in contravention to first pro contravention to first proviso to sub section 1 of section 149 of the viso to sub section 1 of section 149 of the Act which bars the reopening of assessment

KISHOR JETHALAL MORBIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27 (2)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. The brief facts as culled out from the proceeding 7. before the lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual, has filed return of income for the year under consideration on 20.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 53,84,950/-. However as per the information available on record, the assessee

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

delay is condoned to take up the matter for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 13.03.2014, reporting total income at Rs. 6,04,020/-. Information was received by the ld. A.O. from Insight portal that assessee had sold shares in the alleged penny stock scrip i.e. ACI Infocom Ltd. listed

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

148A(d) dated 25.03.2023\nholding that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under section\n148. Accordingly, notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2023 was\nissued requiring the assessee to file the return of income for the\nrelevant assessment year. In response to the said notice, the\nassessee filed his return of income on 12.04.2023 declaring total\nincome