DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

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

House, Tamrind Lane, Fort, Mumbai, G.P.O. Mumbai - 400001 Maharashtra ……………. Appellant PAN – BGAPS2172J v/s DCIT, Circle – 16(3), ……………. Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 12/03/2025 Date of Order – 13/03/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned order

AKSHAY DEEPAK TALIM ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Property Purchased.\n3) Copy of Sanction Letter from PNB Housing Finance Ltd.\n4) Copy of Disbursement Advice of PNB Housing Finance Ltd.\n5) Copies of Receipts & Cheques for Payment made to Builder Meridian\n(AOP)\nITA No.5130/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 11\n13.\nThe AO, vide order dated 30/03/2024 passed under section 148A

MAHAVIR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub- section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, "asset" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits

RATAN N MOTWANI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

Housing Society Ltd. as no confirmed was filed by the assessee, the amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- earlier was treated as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.08.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised as many

ASHOK AMRATLAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2015-16 - A.Y. 2016-17 - A.Y. 2017-18

House Property" and "Income from Other Sources." Subsequently, a search was conducted under Section 132 in the premises of M/s Sri Renuka Mata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., based on information received from the investigation department. It was revealed that during the relevant year, the assessee had deposited cash amounting

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

HOUSE, 7TH\nBARRACK ROAD BOMBAY HOSPITAL\nLANE\nMUMBAI 400020, Maharashtra\nIndia\nPAN:\nAAACC4120G\nA.Y:\n2018-19\nDated:\n14/03/2022\nDIN & Notice No:\nITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-\n22/1040721057(1)\nNotice under clause(b) of section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nSir/Madam/M/s\n1. Whereas I have information which suggests that income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year\n2018-19 has escaped

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 48A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of even date

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 48A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of even date

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 48A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of even date

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 48A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of July 2022. Following that, a notice under section 148 of the Act of even date

AMINA ASLAM QURESHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

House Property and Interest Income. The assessment was reopened as there was difference between purchase consideration as per agreement & Stamp Duty value of the property. The assessee had purchased an immovable property at Rs. 1,55,00,000/-, whereas stamp duty value was at Rs 1,81,46,000/-. 2.1 Notice u/s. 148 dated 30/06/2021 was issued under pre- amended

SURESH KUMAR MAHAVIR PRASAD BESWAL,THANE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

house property and business income as proprietor of M/s Modern Battery Works. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) received information that the assessee has purchased immovable property and has deposited cash during the year under consideration. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income the AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice under section

PANKAJ DHANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-22(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

148A(b) of the Act (under new law) and\nthereby time limit to complete re-assessment under\nsection 153(2) of the Act would be computed from end\nof the year in which the notice under section 148 of the\nAct (under old law) is saved, thereby making the\nimpugned order dated November 2023 barred by\nlimitation and accordingly, invalid

SHAFIQ AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shafiq Ahmed, Dy. Cit Circle-41(1)(1), Flat No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Building Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Vs. No. 1 Om Sai Ekta (Sra), (East), Society, Cts No. 216, Gillbert Mumbai-400051. Hill Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aowpa 3264 Q Appellant Respondent

property for a consideration of ₹28,00,000, whereas the value adopted by the 28,00,000, whereas the value adopted by the 28,00,000, whereas the value adopted by the stamp duty authority for the said transaction was ₹34,63,500, the stamp duty authority for the said transaction was stamp duty authority for the said transaction

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE MITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAXATION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

148A(d) of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31-03-2023. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued asking the assessee to furnish copy of the purchase deed along with details of mode of payment towards purchase of property, copy of bank account statement and sources of funds with supporting