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, 234B, and 234C

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "147", "148", "153C", "153A", "132", "133(6)", "143(3)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D", "271(1)(c)" ], "issues": "Whether the AO erred in initiating reassessment

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

3012/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. The remaining grounds pertaining to interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C

RAMESH AMRATLAL BRAHMBHATT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the reassessment order dated 20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Amratlal Ito Ward 34(3)(2), Brahmbhatt Kautilya Bhavan, 43 Rajnigandha, Vs. Bandra Kurla Gulmohar Cross Road No. Complex, Mumbai – 11, J V P D Scheme, 400 051 Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 Pan/Gir No. Aabpb7235R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2026

234C of the Act. 11. The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter and amend the above grounds whenever required. Facts in Brief 3. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,11,400/-. Subsequently, notice under section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022 pursuant to the order passed under section 148A(d). The reassessment

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

234C of Rs. 6,423/- and CIT(A) erred in\nconfirming the same.\nIn appeal No. ITA No. 8363/MUM/2025 for A.Y. 2016–17\n1. The Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred assuming\njurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned\nCommissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when\nthe jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

reassessment, was retracted and discredited. The addition of dividend income for AY 2016-17 was also found to be erroneous as it was based on a computation sheet inconsistency and taxed exempt income indirectly.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "37(1)", "147", "148", "10(34)", "234A", "234B", "234C

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

234C of Rs. 6,423/- and CIT(A) erred in\nconfirming the same.\nIn appeal No. ITA No. 8363/MUM/2025 for A.Y. 2016–17\n1. The Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred assuming\njurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned\nCommissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when\nthe jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were

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

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

SATISH HARNAMDAS SETHI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of Act in pursuance to the said notice are against the well settled provisions of law and the same may be quashed and set aside. 3. Addition under head income from other invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act unjustified

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

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

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

234C of the IT Act is invalid\nand bad in law and the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in upholding the\nsame.\n10. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and / or modify\nany or all of the aforesaid grounds of appeal either at the time of\nhearing or at any time before the date of hearing.\nSUMMARY

M/S MUMBADEVI VEYHICLES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Mumbadevi Ito Ward 41(4)(2), Veyhicles Room No. 854B, 8Th Shop No. 18, Suyash Vs. Floor, Kautilya Shopping Centre, Nnp, A. Bhavan, Bkc, K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Bandra (East), (E), Mumbai-400 065 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaofm0851F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026

reassessment proceedings. 13. The learned AR further invited our attention to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 placed on record. It was submitted that immediately upon receipt of the said notice, the assessee responded vide letter dated 25.04.2021, much prior to filing of the return of income in response to the said notice. Drawing

ABANS REALTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

sections": [ "250", "148", "69C", "147", "133A", "234B", "234C", "234D", "148A", "270A", "271AAD" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated

AJAY MULTI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

section 147 to 151 have not been fulfilled. 3. The reopening of assessment is without proper application of mind and therefore, bad in law. 4. There is no reason to believe and the reasons recorded are merely on the basis of the information from the DDIT(Investigation). 5. The sanction u/s 151 is bad in law and as a result

MRS. RENU TIKAMDAS THARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings, in the absence of any allegation in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer regarding failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the computation of income, is bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A). has erred, both on facts

ABANS REALTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings under section 148\nby passing an order under section 148A (d) instead of quashing the same.\na. The Original assessment order dated 15.09.2021 was after the survey action, the\nreport of which formed the basis for reopening.\nb. The notice u/s 148A (b) did not enclose the material to support the allegations\nand reporting was done with

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

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

section 234A, 234B and 234C and 234D of the Act. 9. The Ld. AO has erred in the initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that