RITESH SINGH ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TREND ELECTRONICS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

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

31, 32A and other provisions of IBC, it is apparent that the and other provisions of IBC, it is apparent that the and other provisions of IBC, it is apparent that the legislative intent behind liquidation sale process is legislative intent behind liquidation sale process is legislative intent behind liquidation sale process is to ensure that the successful

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

2(22)(a) of the Act in the hands of the members of Shroff family and brought to tax under section 115-O of the Act in the hands of Bloom Packaging and Uniphos International by the CIT(A) was deleted. 20. For submission of ld. Special Counsel that order of Tribunal in case Ultima was based on different fact

AMOHA TRADERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Justice Shri P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2007-08)

reassessment. Therefore, applying the above principles of interpretation and keeping in view the above discussion it has to be held that section 292BB cannot be construed to have retrospective operation and it has to be applied prospectively. 42. Having arrived at the conclusion that section 292BB has no retrospective effect and is to be construed prospectively

CNI RESEARCH LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Cni Research Ltd. Dcit-5(1), A/12 Gokul Arcade, Mumbai बनाम/ Sahar Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai-400057 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaccc2842H

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 2.5. By Notification No.45/2008 dated 24/03/2008, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

2-3 million\ncontributed by assessee for settling a trust\nin foreign country Whether assessment for\nsubject assessment year could not have been\nreopened beyond 31-3-2005 in terms of\nprovisions of section 149 as applicable at\nrelevant time\nHeld, yes\nWhether\nsubsequent amendment to section 149, by\nFinance Act, 2012, which extended limitation\nfor initiation of reassessment

MUKAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukund Limited V. Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor M.K. Road 226 Nariman Point New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department By : Shri Ajay K. Ojha

2) of the Act, the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Section 292BB, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.3008 is not applicable to the proceedings for the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09. We are also of the opinion that Section 292BB

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

2) : In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head “Income from other sources”, namely :— [(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October

GLOBAL BUSINESS CONEXXTIONS PVT.LTD.,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT/DCIT-5(3), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the Appellant 11. on the ground that income liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer made addition of INR 11,83,73,433/- under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act which was confirmed

SAKUN GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

2) of the Act, the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Section 292BB, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.3008 is not applicable to the proceedings for the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09. We are also of the opinion that Section 292BB

SAKUN GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

2) of the Act, the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Section 292BB, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.3008 is not applicable to the proceedings for the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09. We are also of the opinion that Section 292BB

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

2) of section 263 stipulates that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. That period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the original order of assessment dated

RAMESH SALECHA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

2) of the Act, the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Section 292BB, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.3008 is not applicable to the proceedings for the assessment year 2006- 07, 2007-08, 2008-09. We are also of the opinion that Section 292BB

THE TATA POWER COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

2) of Section 263 stipulates that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. That period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the original order of assessment dated 27 December

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

reassessment proceedings, applied section 2(22)(e) of the Act on the funds 21 M/s Saturn Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. acquired by the assessee from SCCPL. The assessee vide letter dated 11/12/2013 explained that the provision of the deem dividend is not attracted and further vide letter dated 30/01/2014 asserted that the trust is not a private limited company therefore

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

31. In T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd., the Hon’ble Delhi High Court undertook an elaborate analysis of sections 144B and 151A of the Act and the Faceless Reassessment Scheme, 2022. The Court categorically held that section 144B is fundamentally procedural and cannot be construed as the exclusive repository of the power to assess or reassess. In paragraph

THE ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings under section 147 when the time for issuance of notice under section 143(2) had not expired. However, taken a different view in the case of ITO v. K M Pachiyappan (311 ITR 31