JCIT 15(1), MUMBAI vs. YOGESH S. KARIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 Joint Commissioner Of Income Shri Yogesh S. Karia, Tax (Osd), 14, Padia Bhuvan, 3Rd Floor, Circle -15(10), Room No.104, Vs. 95-97 Bhandari Street, Matru Mandir, Masjid Bandar, 1St Floor, Mumbai - 400003 Tardeo Rd., Pan: Anepk6161F Mumbai - 400007 (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.12.08, certain additions were made in the case of the assessee. Identical additions were made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) in the subsequent assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), vide

YOGESH S. KARIA,PUNE vs. DCIT 15(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 Joint Commissioner Of Income Shri Yogesh S. Karia, Tax (Osd), 14, Padia Bhuvan, 3Rd Floor, Circle -15(10), Room No.104, Vs. 95-97 Bhandari Street, Matru Mandir, Masjid Bandar, 1St Floor, Mumbai - 400003 Tardeo Rd., Pan: Anepk6161F Mumbai - 400007 (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.12.08, certain additions were made in the case of the assessee. Identical additions were made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) in the subsequent assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), vide

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

section." 8 ITA No. 4749/Mum/2016 for Vodafone India Ltd. Now the question that arises is whether the reassessment made in the instant case under s. 147 of the Act can be termed as a "regular assessment" for the purpose of s. 234D of the Act ? According to the learned Departmental Representative the impugned assessment is the assessment made

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

144A; 8 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Commissioner

PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

reassessment made under section 147, or (b) after the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. . . . 9. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings

TIME MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LLP (EARLIER TIME MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Llp (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 Th Floor, V. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6534/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.07.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-89/Ito-16(1)(5)/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 6. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed that the I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 assessee is engaged in the business of TV serials telecast, advertising, film distribution etc. and had income from sale of pre-recorded CD/DVD

MRS SUNITA SHYAM MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

144A is the Ld. JCIT has to give his judgement/ direction on a issue before him and the Ld. AO is bound to implement such judgement direction. Therefore it is submitted that no proper judgement/ direction given by the JCIT and therefore the order of the Ld. AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is null and void

ITO 10 (1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAILASHNATH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Section 68 of the Act holding that the transaction of receipt of share application money of INR.2,48,05,000/- was not genuine transaction. 5. The Assessee being aggrieved, preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as additions made on merits. The CIT(A) vide order impugned in the present appeal granted

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

144A. But, he is quiet silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT. Ld. Counsel

BIRLA CARBON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

144A. But, he is quiet silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT. Ld. Counsel

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. Cit, 501, 5Th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration Is Whether The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, Can Be Subjected To Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act. For Deciding This Issue, Few Necessary Facts Are Required To Be Considered. The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Providing Information Technology (It)/Information Technology Enabled Service (Ites) To Its Group Companies As Well As Consulting Services To Its Clients. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed

144A. But, he is quiet silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT. Ld. Counsel

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmondelez India Foods Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Mumbai- Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, 8 Tower-3 (Wing C), One 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar International Cente Bhavan, Maharshi (Formerly Indiabulls Finance Karve Road, Mumbai- Centre) Parel, Mumbai- 400020 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc0460H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakker & Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Pcit, Mumbai-8 (‘The Ld. Pcit’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

144A. But, he is quipe silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment 7 Mondelez India Foods Private Limited order is passed after the direction of DRP Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalhindustan Construction Company Ltd., Hincon House, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 083. Pan No.: Aaach0968B ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-6, R. No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ..... Respondent

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing 6 Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., Officer, as the case may be, conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

144A. But, he is quiet silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT. Ld. Counsel

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. (iii)Shanti Exim Ltd Vs CIT [20171 88 taxmann.com 361 (Ahd. Tribunal) The Commissioner set aside assessment order in exercise of his power under section 263 on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make any independent verification to establish the genuineness

M/S. BHARTI LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(2) (1) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment proceedings are invalid, without jurisdiction, has no legs to stand and hence must be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) M/s Bharati Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 14-15 has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income

MR. ABHIJEET SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-16(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleabhijeet Soni V. Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(1) Room No. 441 C/O- M/S. Jayesh Sangharajka & Co.Llp 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre Aayakar Bhavan Ds Phalke Road Mumbai - 400020 Dadar (E), Mumbai - 400014 Pan: Aadps8454R (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A before Ld. Jt CIT range 16(2), requesting him to pass direction on whether Ld. AO had material leading to reasons to believe that income has escaped the assessment for making reassessment, whether other provisions of Chapter XIV were complied, directing Ld. AO to provide copy of material on the basis of which assessment is made. f. Ld. JCIT