STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35 (2AB) of the act has been considered. The learned coordinate bench in Para number 11.6.8 has categorically held that the requirement of form number 3CL has been introduced with effect from 1/7/2016 and prior to that there was no such requirement. The coordinate benches relied on the decision of the Pune bench

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

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

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

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

151 is bad in law and 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 2 Shivi Mukesh Kumar vs. ACIT from the ground raised

ARVIND VELJI GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

disallowance of of of LTCG LTCG LTCG of of of Rs. Rs. Rs. 1,01,85,745/- 1,01,85,745/ 1,01,85,745/ (Rs.1,11,85,745/-, minus Rs 10,00,000/ , minus Rs 10,00,000/-) and treating the same as non treating the same as non genuine and taxing the sale consideration

ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN , BKC, MUMBAI vs. ARVIND VELJI GADA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

disallowance of of of LTCG LTCG LTCG of of of Rs. Rs. Rs. 1,01,85,745/- 1,01,85,745/ 1,01,85,745/ (Rs.1,11,85,745/-, minus Rs 10,00,000/ , minus Rs 10,00,000/-) and treating the same as non treating the same as non genuine and taxing the sale consideration

ACIT CIR. 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

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

151 was not provided to the appellant, much less within limitation prescribed in section 149 of the Act.‖ 3.1. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in its appeal:- ―1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(2)(1),MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG vs. HOMEWELL REALTY LLP, ANDHERI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

151 of the Act?\n4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Firm and has\nfiled return for AY 2017-18 on 11.10.2017 declaring total income of Nil\nand the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later, certain\ninformation was received by the AO from the Investigation wing of the\nDepartment whereby

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance of purchases to 1% on account of bogus purchases without considering the fact that the entry provider has himself admitted that assessee company has entered into bogus purchases with his company and similar other companies and provided a layer of accommodation during the course of search. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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. ()

disallowed certain expenses amounting to 5 ITA 2791, 2357 & 2355/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Aptivaa Middle Ease FZE ₹5,31,09,042/- as bogus and was held to be taxable in India at 40%. It was also held by the Ld.AR that assessee is a non- resident and has a fixed place of business in India. Accordingly

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. ()

disallowed certain expenses amounting to 5 ITA 2791, 2357 & 2355/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Aptivaa Middle Ease FZE ₹5,31,09,042/- as bogus and was held to be taxable in India at 40%. It was also held by the Ld.AR that assessee is a non- resident and has a fixed place of business in India. Accordingly

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. ()

disallowed certain expenses amounting to 5 ITA 2791, 2357 & 2355/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Aptivaa Middle Ease FZE ₹5,31,09,042/- as bogus and was held to be taxable in India at 40%. It was also held by the Ld.AR that assessee is a non- resident and has a fixed place of business in India. Accordingly

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance of Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only Rs. 1,45,32,176 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, considering only investments from which exempt income was actually earned. The details of investments from which exempt income was actually earned

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

disallowance under section 14 A is restricted to the extent of 1% of the exempt income earned by the assessee is also apply to this case. Accordingly ground number 4 of the appeal of the AO and 1 of the appeal of the assessee are decided accordingly. ` 45) Ground number 4 (a) of the appeal is against the broken period

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