SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings on incorrect understanding of\nfacts. We note that the Assessing Officer had identified the Assessee\nas a beneficiary of accommodation entries taken by the Assessee in\nrespect of sale of 44200 shares of KGN Enterprises. Admittedly, in\naggregate 44,200 share of KGN Enterprises were sold by the\nAssessee during the previous year(s) relevant to Assessment Years

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

section 148A(b) providing opportunity to the assessee; under section 148A(b) providing opportunity to the assessee; thirdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass rdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass rdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass a speaking order under section 148A(d) determining whether

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

5) of section 158BA], shall be made within a period of one year from the end of the month of such revival or within the period specified in this section or sub-section (1) of section 153B 18[or section 158BE], whichever is later. (9) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance

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

5) of section 158BA], shall be made within a period of one year from the end of the month of such revival or within the period specified in this section or sub-section (1) of section 153B 18[or section 158BE], whichever is later. (9) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings on incorrect understanding of\nfacts. We note that the Assessing Officer had identified the Assessee\nas a beneficiary of accommodation entries taken by the Assessee in\nrespect of sale of 44200 shares of KGN Enterprises. Admittedly, in\naggregate 44,200 share of KGN Enterprises were sold by the\nAssessee during the previous year(s) relevant to Assessment Years

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional the period for determining the additional interest payable to such interest payable to such assessee under this sub assessee under this sub-section, the period beginning from the section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

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

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

reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional the period for determining the additional interest payable to such interest payable to such assessee under this sub assessee under this sub-section, the period beginning from the section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

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

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

reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional the period for determining the additional interest payable to such interest payable to such assessee under this sub assessee under this sub-section, the period beginning from the section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing

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 ()

21 Trend Electronics Limited exhaustive examination of the statutory framework and binding exhaustive examination of the statutory framework and binding exhaustive examination of the statutory framework and binding precedents, including precedents, including S.V. Kondaskar v. V.M. Deshpande S.V. Kondaskar v. V.M. Deshpande (AIR 1972 SC 878), Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard

NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 [PAN: AFKPT5682G] 2 Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group Assessee by : Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash Khandelwal, Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-07-2025 O R D E R PER BENCH : These appeals are filed by the aforesaid assessees against the orders of the Assessing

NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 [PAN: AFKPT5682G] 2 Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group Assessee by : Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash Khandelwal, Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-07-2025 O R D E R PER BENCH : These appeals are filed by the aforesaid assessees against the orders of the Assessing

JAWAHARLAL GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 [PAN: AFKPT5682G] 2 Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group Assessee by : Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash Khandelwal, Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-07-2025 O R D E R PER BENCH : These appeals are filed by the aforesaid assessees against the orders of the Assessing

PARTAB GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 [PAN: AFKPT5682G] 2 Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group Assessee by : Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash Khandelwal, Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-07-2025 O R D E R PER BENCH : These appeals are filed by the aforesaid assessees against the orders of the Assessing

PARTAB GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 [PAN: AFKPT5682G] |\n| 537/Mum/2025 | 2006-07| |\n| 538/Mum/2025 | 2007-08| |\n\nPratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group\n\nAssessee by : Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash Khandelwal,\nRevenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR\n\nDate of Hearing : 28-07-2025\nDate of Pronouncement : 29-07-2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER BENCH :\n\nThese appeals are filed

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total income was was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/ assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/-. In view of the assesse . In view of the assessed income, the Assessing Officer

SHAM GULABRAI TULSYANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 [PAN: AFKPT5682G] | |\n| 538/Mum/2025 | 2007-08 | | |\n\nPratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group\n\nAssessee by : Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash Khandelwal,\nRevenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR\n\nDate of Hearing : 28-07-2025\nDate of Pronouncement : 29-07-2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER BENCH :\n\nThese appeals are filed by the aforesaid assessees against

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, is not legally sustainable in the present case. The foundation of the reopening rests entirely on documents seized during the search and seizure operation conducted on a third party, namely the xxxxxxxxxx. As per the express scheme of the Act, where documents seized in a search pertain to or belong

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) of the I. T. Act.\nIn form 10B submitted during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 13-14, the assessee has claimed that there are no investments held at any time during the previous year in concerns in which persons referred to in section 13(3) have a substantial interest.\nHowever, on perusal

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

21,14,67,970/- under section 10(34); and long under section 10(34); and long-term capital gains term capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section