APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

148A(d) dated 28.07.2022, notice under section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022.\n4. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee filed its return of income on 18.08.2021, declaring income as originally returned. During the course of reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued

SHIVI MUKESH KUMAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen

disallowing the donation of Rs.1,75,00,000/- made to Rural Development Society. While completing the assessment, the A.O. alleged that the assessee did not respond to any of the show cause notices issued to him. 5. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, inter alia, challenging the validity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5 (3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

148A(d) of the Act dated 28.07.2022 and issued the notice u/s. 148 on the same date. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 after making various additions / disallowance. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee besides contending the additions / disallowances on merits also raised the legal contention that the notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

148A(d) of the Act dated 28.07.2022 and issued the notice u/s. 148 on the same date. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 after making various additions / disallowance. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee besides contending the additions / disallowances on merits also raised the legal contention that the notice

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD (JAO: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5(3), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

148A(d) of the Act dated 28.07.2022 and issued the notice u/s. 148 on the same date. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 after making various additions / disallowance. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee besides contending the additions / disallowances on merits also raised the legal contention that the notice

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD (JAO: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5(3), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

148A(d) of the Act dated 28.07.2022 and issued the notice u/s. 148 on the same date. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 after making various additions / disallowance. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee besides contending the additions / disallowances on merits also raised the legal contention that the notice

VIPENDRA RAVINDRA MANDAL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

148A(d) of the Act and thereafter issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act requiring the thereafter issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act requiring the thereafter issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act requiring the assessee to file a return of income. assessee to file a return of income. In response, the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. VINOD BHANJI SHAH, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 68 of the Act. (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in deleting the disallowance of business expenses and interest without appreciating that the assessee failed to produce supporting bills, vouchers or documentary evidences to substantiate the genuineness of such expenses. (vii) Whether

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

148A(d) on 29/07/2022 by rejecting the objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 29/07/2022 for all years under consideration. 2.3 A draft assessment order was subsequently passed on 29/05/2023 for all the years under consideration by holding that, the assessee is fully managed and controlled from India and arrangement created by the assessee

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

148A(d) on 29/07/2022 by rejecting the objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 29/07/2022 for all years under consideration. 2.3 A draft assessment order was subsequently passed on 29/05/2023 for all the years under consideration by holding that, the assessee is fully managed and controlled from India and arrangement created by the assessee

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

148A(d) on 29/07/2022 by rejecting the objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 29/07/2022 for all years under consideration. 2.3 A draft assessment order was subsequently passed on 29/05/2023 for all the years under consideration by holding that, the assessee is fully managed and controlled from India and arrangement created by the assessee

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 148A(d). The ld. AR further submitted that the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) could have been

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

148A(d) of the Act was passed on 28/07/2022 declaring that it is a fit 5 ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, on 28/07/2022, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In response to the notice issued under section

ACIT-15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURYA FERROUS ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of purchases to 4% an account of bogus purchases without considering the fact that during the course of search, the entry provider has himself admitted that assessee company has been provided accommodation entries for claiming bogus expenses to deflate the profit thereby the profit thereby evading income tax. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cause

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(1) , MUMBAI, MUMBAI

148A(b) notice and order under section\n148A(d). The ld. AR further submitted that the disallowance made under section

M/S.WELLKNOWN POLYESTERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

disallowing the claim of ₹6,32,82,073/- towards loss on assignment of creditors, treating the same as non-genuine and not commensurate with business activity. It was noted that the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory documentary evidence to substantiate the loss, could not establish the identity and genuineness of the parties or transactions, and failed to support its claim

DATTATRAY VITHOBA SAWANT,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-42(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

disallowing deduction under Chapter VI-A amounting to ₹2,10,000 and making an addition of ₹48,383 in respect of exemption claimed u/s 10(14), determining the assessed total income at ₹6,77,573. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who, in the absence of effective

ARIHANT ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowing brokerage expenses of Rs. 65,000/-. 7) The Ld. AO, NeAC, has erred in the levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. 8) The Ld. AO, has erred in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 274 r.w.s.270A of the Act. 9) The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal