GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 234A and 234B be deleted.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, at the outset, challenged the validity of reassessment

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.02.2023, passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) and section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs. 19,370/-, i.e. the returned income. Interest under sections 234A

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme; and (iii) the assessment orders are further invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 owing to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. The remaining grounds pertaining to interest under sections 234A

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

234A, 234B, 234C and 234F of the Act, and the order of CIT (Appeal)/NFAC is not correct as per procedure in confirming the same, hence the same is requested to be set aside. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

section 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.\n40. From a careful perusal of the grounds raised by the assessee in connected assessment years, it emerges that the challenge revolves primarily around interrelated

EI BENEFICARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

3230/Mum/2025 Govind

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings under section 148. Accordingly, the ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the present case. 33. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on his part, sought to defend the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) with considerable fervor. He submitted that the seized excel sheets and loose papers though not part of the statutory books

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

section 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.\n\nThe Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.\n\n40. From a careful perusal of the grounds raised by the assessee in connected assessment years, it emerges that the challenge revolves primarily

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme; and (iii) the assessment orders are further invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 owing to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. (iv) the assessment orders are further invalidated for issue of defective notice under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. E I RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme; and (iii) the assessment orders are further invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 owing to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. (iv) the assessment orders are further invalidated for issue of defective notice under

ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. ANIL M. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

reassessing u/s 153A on the completed assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thus, considering the judgment in the case of the Jai Steel Ltd (supra), the arguments on the legal issue raised before us stands covered. Therefore, considering the Rajasthan High Court‟s judgment in the case of Jai Steels Ltd, supra, we have no difficulty in (i) upholding

ANIL MAHAVIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

reassessing u/s 153A on the completed assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thus, considering the judgment in the case of the Jai Steel Ltd (supra), the arguments on the legal issue raised before us stands covered. Therefore, considering the Rajasthan High Court‟s judgment in the case of Jai Steels Ltd, supra, we have no difficulty in (i) upholding

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

234A and 234B of the I. T. Act 1961 of Rs. 1,92,01,470/-and Rs. 1,95,68,962/- respectively is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstance of the case. 9 Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group 10. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee, Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani

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

234A and 234B of the I. T. Act 1961 of Rs. 1,92,01,470/-and Rs. 1,95,68,962/- respectively is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstance of the case. 9 Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group 10. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee, Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

234A and 234B of the I. T. Act 1961 of Rs.92,07,170/- and Rs.1,95,68,962/- respectively is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 10 Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group 10. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee, Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani, in ITA No. 448/Mum/2025 pertaining

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

234A and 234B of the I. T. Act 1961 of Rs.92,07,470/- and Rs.1,95,68,962/- respectively is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee, Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani, in ITA No. 448/Mum/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2006-07 was taken

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

234A and 234B of the I. T. Act 1961 of Rs. 1,92,01,470/-and Rs. 1,95,68,962/- respectively is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstance of the case. 9 Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group 10. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee, Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani

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

234A and 234B of the I. T. Act 1961 of Rs. 1,92,01,470/-and Rs. 1,95,68,962/- respectively is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstance of the case. 9 Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani and group 10. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee, Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

234A and 234B of the I. T. Act 1961 of Rs.92,91,701/- and Rs.1,95,68,962/- respectively is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee, Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani, in ITA No. 448/Mum/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2006-07 was taken