DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

condone the delay and hence the appeals are the appeals are admitted for hearing admitted for hearing on merits. 4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter- All the grounds raised by the Department are inter All the grounds raised by the Department are inter related and inter related and inter-connected and relates to challenging

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

151 of the income tax Act 1961 for assessment year 2009 1961 for assessment year 2009-10 it transpired that the 10 it transpired that the notice under section 148 could be issued by assessing notice under section 148 could be issued by assessing notice under section 148 could be issued by assessing officer who should not be below

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 ()

section 151(ii) of the act. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) however dismissed the legal contentions raised by the assessee and confirmed the addition by observing as under: “6. Decision: The appellant in its ground of appeal has assailed the AO in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The AO in the assessment order noted that information

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 ()

section 151 of the Act from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, however approval is from PCIT. The approval is not in accordance with law, therefore liable to be quashed. 2 I.T.A. No. 7421/Mum/2025 4. The Id CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment vide notice

MARK FOODS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoning the delay in filing the appeal thereby violating the principles of natural Justice. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 81,75,025/-on account of unexplained source of income under section 68 merely on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. 11. In the facts

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

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

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

151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read\nwith TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021\npertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and\n2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation\nbelow

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)

delay for 37 days for filing CO is duly condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return by declaring total income 1,00,000/-. However, the assessee had sold the property for agreement value of Rs.25,00,000/- as against the stamp duty value

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

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

delay of 763 days 763 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication on merits 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case

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

delay of 763 days 763 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication on merits 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is Briefly stated, the facts of the case

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

151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read\nwith TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021\npertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and\n2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation\nbelow

VIIKING MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) CENTRAL CIR4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blev. Acit – Central Circle-4(4) Viiking Media & Entertainment Pvt Ltd., 604-065, 6Th Floor, Gateway Plaza, Air India Building Hiranandani Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Central Avenue, Powai, Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aaacj9884E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkant Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Ms. Richa Gulati Department Represented By :

condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal filed in Form no 36 :– “The following grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to one another – 1. The Assistant Commissioner of income-tax, Central

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Vs. Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C. O. No. 182/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3792/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri. Omkandalkar Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short)

Delay condoned. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made on account of variation in respect of issue of unexplained credits u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 6,18,86,301/- even while

MAHESH PRAKASH BENDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

151 of the Act, a notice under section 148 dated 22.03.2021 was issued to the assessee requiring him to file the return of income. However, no compliance was made by the assessee. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) were issued calling for details. The case was transferred to the National Faceless Assessment Centre under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Despite

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