KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

129 of b.) the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally c.) assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

NIKHIL RASHIKLAL VORA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), 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: 2012-13 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

129/- Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty OneThousand Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty OneThousand Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty OneThousand OneHundred TwentyNine] which is charge OneHundred TwentyNine] which is chargeable to tax has deemed to able to tax has deemed to be an escaped assessment and therefore the provisions of section

ACIT-16(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. FAKHRUDDIN TAIYEBALI PADARIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit- 16(2), Mumbai Fakhruddin Taiyebali Padaria 5Th Floor, Shabbir Place, 80 Vs. Dr. A.L. Nair Road, Mumbai- 400008. Pan: Abdpp 7103 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025

reassessment of escaped income of the deceased, the Assessing Officer has to bring all the legal representatives on record. However, in the instant case no such exercise has been done by the AO. From the assessment order, it is not clear that the notice under section 142(1) and further show-cause notices have been served to whom

VINAY ARUN JOSHI,THANE vs. PCIT CENTRAL MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nthat stood abated shall stand revived.\n\n10. Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, it\nbecomes clear that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, it is\nonly the assessment/reassessment proceedings that are pending on the\ndate of conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under\nSection 132A

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

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

reassessment shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of this section as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016). Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— the time taken in reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or in (i) giving an opportunity

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

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

reassessment shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of this section as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016). Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— the time taken in reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or in (i) giving an opportunity

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), NARIMAN POINT vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

129 of the Act, the AO interalia raised the following\nquery:-\n\"24. Details of interest accrued carried to suspense account with a note on its\ntaxability in view of provision of Section 43D and Rule 6EA.”\n5.2.1. The assessee replied as under:-\nHSBC X\n16 December 2016\nThe Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,\n(International Taxation

ITO-23(3)(6).MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAJESHWAR BULLION TRADING , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

129 c. Section 148A(d) – to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under Section 148; and d. Section 148 – to issue a reassessment

M/S. RAJESHWAR BULLION TRADING ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 23(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

129 c. Section 148A(d) – to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under Section 148; and d. Section 148 – to issue a reassessment

KASHYAP K. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

129 of the Act for change in the incumbent AO and never given to the assessee by the AO. c.) Framing the impugned assessment order by illegally assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act instead of the correct section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, by relying on an incriminating information found by the revenue, admittedly in a search