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

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

housing society Ltd, MM Joshi Marg, Apollo Mill\ncompound, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 11 for Rs. 130,500,000/-\nfrom Agies Realtors and developers private limited [ Seller] on\n23 June 2016. Assessee paid a further sum of Rs. 9,006,600 as\nStamp duty and Rs. 30,000 as registration fees. However, the\nstamp duty value of the above property

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

151A of the Act. 3. The ld.AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs. 62,00,000 only on the basis of an alleged excel sheet and alleged statement of third party without providing an opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant and in total breach of principles of natural justice. 4. The ld. AO/DRP erred in making addition

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE,THANE vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-1(2)(1), 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

151A of the Act. 3. The ld.AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs. 62,00,000 only on the basis of an alleged excel sheet and alleged statement of third party without providing an opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant and in total breach of principles of natural justice. 4. The ld. AO/DRP erred in making addition

JAMES IVAN DANTIS,MUMBAI vs. ITO -41(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

151A, as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Hence, the impugned. notice issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 void ab initio, and the same should be quashed. 2.0 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting

JAMES IVAN DANTIS,NIGERIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-41(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

151A, as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Hence, the impugned. notice issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 void ab initio, and the same should be quashed. 2.0 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting

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

151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals- NFAC erred in not following the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court decision and giving precedence to the Office memorandum and non-jurisdictional Calcutta High Court decision. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals -NFAC erred in conforming the actions of the Assessing Officer

HETAL PAGARE, ACIT 16(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HASMUKH KABABHAI RAVAT, MULUND WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 Pan: Aabpr2061D (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, business and profession and income from other sources. Subject to the above, the total income returned by the assessee at Rs. 98,99,830/- is accepted by the AO and assessed the income u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. A show cause notice under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act was issued on 22.03.2022 alongwith

GAUTAM JYOTI CO OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY ,GIRGAON MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19 1 1 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

151A of the Act. The impugned notice can only be issued by faceless assessing officer therefore the impunities issued under section 148 of the act is bad in law. Hence, the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) upholding the impugned notice is also void-ab-initio and the same may be quashed and set aside

FAISAL BADRUDDIN SHITWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAX WARD)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrifaisal Badruddin Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Kautilya Shitware Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 307, 1A, Delux Nagar Vs. Complex, Mumbai 400051 Building, Jeevan Baug, Post Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Office Road, Mumbra, Thane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400612 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bvops1660L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai Dated 17.12.2024 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

151A read with Notification 18 of 2022; 1.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned re-assessment be quashed and set aside. ON JURISDICTION AND VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS: 2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order as passed by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation since

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)

151A and the notification issued thereunder notifying e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of an amount