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

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section\n147 of the Act. In that case also the judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Ltd. (Supra)\ndealing with the interpretation of provisions contained in Section\n153A of the Act and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal

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 under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C. Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D, the P a g e | 18 ITA No. 3331, 3332/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 Shri Amit Mangilal Jain cases

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, an assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the completed u/s 143(3) of the Act could be reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year iod of four years from

ALBERT JOSEPH ROZARIO,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

23. It was further submitted that proviso to section 151 cannot resuscitate an approval which was illegal when it was granted. As already submitted earlier, approval of a specified authority is a jurisdictional requirement. It is a mandatory requirement. It is to protect an assessee from any unnecessary harassment of going through a reassessment

M/S. STEECON INFRASTRUCTURE ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment need not be issued against the persons, who were partners at the relevant time. The section 44 of Income- tax Act, 1922 being pari materi with the provisions of section 189 of Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore ratio of the said decision is applicable over the facts of the instant case. 23

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta statutory provisions of section 153A stood triggered and any reassessment proceedings initiated under section

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non- \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827

ABHUBHAI HIRABHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section\n147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives seized\nduring the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded during\nproceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan advanced and\ninterest earned thereon were unaccounted

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of Act are also quashed. Thus Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and Ground No.2 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Ground No.3 to 7: 19. Ground No. 3 to 7 raised

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of Act are also quashed. Thus Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and Ground No.2 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Ground No.3 to 7: 19. Ground No. 3 to 7 raised

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of Act are also quashed. Thus Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and Ground No.2 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Ground No.3 to 7: 19. Ground No. 3 to 7 raised

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of Act are also quashed. Thus Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and Ground No.2 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Ground No.3 to 7: 19. Ground No. 3 to 7 raised