ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

13-15\nfor reasons\n3.\n19th January\n2022\nNotice u/s 142(1) of the Act\n16-18\n4.\n10th February\n2022\nNotice u/s143(2)\nr.w.s 147 providing 19-28\nreasons for reopening\n5.\n16th February\n2022\nNotice u/s 142(1) of the Act\n29-30\n6.\n1st March 2022\nObjection filed\nreopening for\nreassessment\nwith\nrespect

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

13-15\nfor reasons\n3. 19th January\n2022\nNotice u/s 142(1) of the Act\n16-18\n4. 10th February\n2022\nNotice u/s143(2)\nr.w.s 147 providing 19-28\nreasons for reopening\n5. 16th February\n2022\nNotice u/s 142(1) of the Act\n29-30\n6. 1st March 2022\nObjection filed\nreopening for\nreassessment\nwith respect

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section

PRAFUL ARJUN RANE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act do not apply. It has given the premises

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act do not apply. It has given the premises

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act do not apply. It has given the premises

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act do not apply. It has given the premises

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.) 8.1 Finance Act, 2021 amended re-assessment related provisions w.e.f. 01.04.2021. These amended provisions made a significant change in the way re-assessment proceedings are 10 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana

BHUSHAN VASANT PARELKAR,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old 9 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar AY 2013-14 regime will

MOHAMEDALI SHABANALI BADAMI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income

NARESH AMRATLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-27(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed allowed

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

b…... f. f. f. The The The Revenue Revenue Revenue concedes concedes concedes that that that for for for the the the assessment year 2015 assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued 16, all notices issued on or before 1 April 2021 will have on or before 1 April 2021 will have on or before 1 April 2021 will have

ELSIE HUBALD,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

13) of the IT Act is invalid and bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in rejecting the objections raised against the proposed addition of Rs.43,67,491/- u/s 69 of the act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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)

reassessment proceedings in such cases by taking recourse to the longer period for initiating re-assessment ITA No. 1407/MUM/2021 & CO No.762924 Assessment Year: 2015-16 proceedings as prescribed in the amended provisions contained in Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, were time limit to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act had not expired as per Section

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. ()

b) of the old regime. The Revenue accepts that without application of TOLA, the time limit for issuance of reassessment notices after 1 April 2021 expires for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017- 2018 in the following manner: (i) for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the six year period expires

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. ()

b) of the old regime. The Revenue accepts that without application of TOLA, the time limit for issuance of reassessment notices after 1 April 2021 expires for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017- 2018 in the following manner: (i) for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the six year period expires

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. ()

b) of the old regime. The Revenue accepts that without application of TOLA, the time limit for issuance of reassessment notices after 1 April 2021 expires for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017- 2018 in the following manner: (i) for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the six year period expires

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.] The first proviso to Section 149 of the Act provides that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any point of time in a case for a relevant

KETUKUMAR KRISHNAVADAN PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and 13 ITA No.4502/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19 Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh (ii)If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval