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

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

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

234C of the Act. GROUND IX: GENERAL. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete, all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 11. Before us, assessee has filed a chart highlighting the status of the appeal whether abated or non-abated in the case of group companies which is reproduced below: - KamlaLandmarc Enterprises Before H Bench

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

234C of the Act. GROUND IX: GENERAL. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete, all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 11. Before us, assessee has filed a chart highlighting the status of the appeal whether abated or non-abated in the case of group companies which is reproduced below: - KamlaLandmarc Enterprises Before H Bench

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

234C of the Act. GROUND IX: GENERAL. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete, all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 11. Before us, assessee has filed a chart highlighting the status of the appeal whether abated or non-abated in the case of group companies which is reproduced below: - KamlaLandmarc Enterprises Before H Bench

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

234C of the Act. GROUND IX: GENERAL. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete, all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 11. Before us, assessee has filed a chart highlighting the status of the appeal whether abated or non-abated in the case of group companies which is reproduced below: - KamlaLandmarc Enterprises Before H Bench

KAMLA LAMDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

234C of the Act. GROUND IX: GENERAL. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete, all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 11. Before us, assessee has filed a chart highlighting the status of the appeal whether abated or non-abated in the case of group companies which is reproduced below: - KamlaLandmarc Enterprises Before H Bench

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(3)(4), CENTRAL CIRCLE,, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

234C of the Act. GROUND IX: GENERAL. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete, all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 11. Before us, assessee has filed a chart highlighting the status of the appeal whether abated or non-abated in the case of group companies which is reproduced below: - KamlaLandmarc Enterprises Before H Bench

KAMLA LANDMARC ENTERPRISES, ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-(3)(4),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

234C of the Act. GROUND IX: GENERAL. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete, all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 11. Before us, assessee has filed a chart highlighting the status of the appeal whether abated or non-abated in the case of group companies which is reproduced below: - KamlaLandmarc Enterprises Before H Bench

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

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

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

234C of the IT Act, 1961. 22. The learned A. O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 23. Any other ground or grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing.” 06. Assessee in ITA No 1292 is a company engaged in trading in gold bar, gold jewellery

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

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

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

reassessment orders when the search was initiated or the requisition was made. 22. In the light of our discussion, we find it difficult to uphold the view of the Tribunal expressed in Para 9.6 of its order that since the returns of income filed by the assessee for all the six years under consideration before the search took place were

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

reassessment orders when the search was initiated or the requisition was made. 22. In the light of our discussion, we find it difficult to uphold the view of the Tribunal expressed in Para 9.6 of its order that since the returns of income filed by the assessee for all the six years under consideration before the search took place were