BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

588 results for “reassessment”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi714Mumbai588Bangalore281Chennai216Kolkata142Jaipur137Hyderabad98Ahmedabad90Pune65Chandigarh61Raipur53Cochin36Nagpur33Lucknow30Indore27Telangana26Guwahati24Allahabad21Jodhpur21Visakhapatnam18SC13Agra13Karnataka12Cuttack8Rajkot8Patna8Ranchi7Surat7Calcutta5Amritsar5Orissa3Panaji3Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan2Jabalpur2Gauhati1Uttarakhand1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)111Section 14885Section 14774Addition to Income57Section 6852Section 15444Reassessment36Section 14A33Section 153A31Disallowance

YASH DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 27(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3217/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Yash Developers, Dcit-27(3), 1St Flr Anand, 7Th Road, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Maryland Apartment, D.K. Vs. Station Complex, Sandhu Marg, Chembur, Vashi-400703 Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaafy 6171 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harmesh Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Mandar Vaidya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harmesh Lal, DR
Section 154

section 154(1A) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since issue of lease Supreme Court held that since issue of lease Supreme Court held that since issue of lease equalization fund was not the subject matter of equalization fund was not the subject matter of equalization fund was not the subject matter of reassessment

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 588 · Page 1 of 30

...
29
Reopening of Assessment27
Section 25025

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

ITA 5421/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M.Madhavi-CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234D

section 154(7) provides that no order u/s. 154 shall be passed after expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. 14 Reliance Industries Ltd. 15. Now, we note that in the rectification order passed, AO has sought to rectifying the following mistakes. i) Interest on income

TMT EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THANE -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

ITA 4442/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tmt Employees Co-Operative Credit Ito 3(4) Society Ltd., Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road Shop No. 10, Prashaskiya Bhavan, Vs. No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Thane M P (Tmt) Employees Ccs, Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Wagle Estate Aagar, Thane-400604. Pan No. Aaeat 4545 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Venugopal C. Nair
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

154 of the Act. 2.4 Insofar as the reassessment order dated 26.11.2019 passed Insofar as the reassessment order dated 26.11.2019 passed Insofar as the reassessment order dated 26.11.2019 passed under Section

DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GODREJ INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4339/MUM/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Godrej Industries Circle 14(1)(2) Pirojsha Nagar Eastern Vs. 470 Aayakar Bhavan, 4 Th Floor, Express High Way Vikhroli M.K. Marg, Mumbai-20 (E), Mumbai-400 070 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaecg2953R Revenue By .. Miss Vidisha Kalra, Cit Dr Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Assessee By .. Date Of Hearing .. 23-03-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 07-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 44ASection 80H

154 of the Act, according to her, the period of limitation was decided for action under section 263 of the Act with reference to the date of original assessment order and in the subsequent reassessment

ASST. CIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TILAKNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1355/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1355/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) Acit-1(3)(1), Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Limited. 3Rd Floor, Indl.Assurance Bldg. Jd Tata Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaact-6047-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 04/01/2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing & Selling Of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The 2 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,19,12,503/- On 30/09/2009. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 07/12/2011. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S. 154 Of The Act Dated 18/03/2013 To Rectify The Alleged Mistake In Assessment Order On Two Counts:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh DamorFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neelam Jadhav
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 40

section 154 of the Act expires on 31/03/2016. The Assessing Officer initiated fresh proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act vide notice dated 10/03/2017. Thus, the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act is clearly beyond time and in violation of the provisions of the Act. In support of his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

reassessment‘. Section 143, as a whole, is a provision regarding assessment. The modalities and procedure for assessment have been provided for in sub- section (1), which is different from the procedure under sub- section (2) read with sub-section (3) of the same provision. In both cases, it is a proceeding under the Act and the assessment accepted or made

VERTEX SPINNING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 1 and 2

ITA 353/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vertex Spinning Limited 1011, 10Th Floor, Embassy Centre, 207, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan:Aabcv5617N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(3) 573, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari,Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 250

154 of the Act and AO thrice got the opportunity to proceed under the same. But, instead of that he had chosen for proceedings u/s. 148, which is not either warranted or permissible as per law. It is the settled principle of law that under section 147, the proceedings for the reassessment

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5488/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Revenue by B Sriniwas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

section 154 /254 of the Act is entirely different from the jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 because the two provisions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. GANESH POLYCHEM LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2664/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit, Central Circle – 3(2) Room No.402, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai - 400051 ……………. Appellant Pan – Aabcg6160B V/S Ganesh Polychem Ltd., 2Nd Floor Udyog Kshetra, Mulund Goregoan Link Road Mulund (W) ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400080 Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounted to reassessment, whereas it merely corrected an evident mistake without conducting

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7620/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. Shiv PrakashFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari, DR
Section 140ASection 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub- section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Bhandari &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80G

reassessment beyond 3 years under section 149(1)(b), the donation entry is clearly traceable in the books and 149(1)(b), the donation entry is clearly traceable in the books and 149(1)(b), the donation entry is clearly traceable in the books and results in a claimed deduction. As such results in a claimed deduction. As such

INTELENET GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5844/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Acit – 12(2), 145, Aaykar Ltd; Intelenet Towers, Plot Cst No. Vs. Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Marg, 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 090. Pan No. Aaaci7387P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S.K Tyagi, A.R Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri S.K Tyagi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, CIT D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

section 154 of the Act, as the reassessment order which was rectified vide the impugned order under section 154 of the Act, stood

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7268/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said Clause (c)." 10. As per the amendment, a mere direction for initiating of penalty proceedings under sub- Section (1) of Section 271, shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings under sub-Section

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7325/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80ISection 80M

reassessment order framed by the AO under section 143(3)/147 of the Act is void. For this assessee has raised the following ground No.1: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and thereby the assessment under section 143(3) read with section

ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7377/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80ISection 80M

reassessment order framed by the AO under section 143(3)/147 of the Act is void. For this assessee has raised the following ground No.1: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and thereby the assessment under section 143(3) read with section

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1559/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered during the course of the search proceedings material gathered during the course of the search proceedings material gathered during the course of the search proceedings establishes something contrary to it. If there is nothing on record to establishes something contrary to it. If there is nothing on record to establishes

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

154 or section 250, direct the Assessing] Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order. (2A) *** (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT LTU-2, , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 1580/MUM/2020[UNION BANK OF INDIA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)

154. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 14A without appreciating that appellant being trader is securities has incurred expenses for buying and selling securities and not for earning of tax free income and accordingly, no disallowance is warranted.” Revenue’s Appeal “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6201/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6200/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap