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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 153A for unabated assessment years, statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material and here in this case this statement is not of the assessee but of her husband and here it is not a case of assessment u/s.153C that any material or document found from search of other person has been made the basis for addition. Albeit

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH,BPCL STAFF COLONY vs. ITO/DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MUMBAI, INCOME TAX BUILDING

reassessment proceedings stand\nvitiated.\n8. General Ground:\nThe appellant denies her liability to be assessed at the income and tax\ndetermined. The additions confirmed by the learned CIT(A) are arbitrary,\nunjustified, and liable to be deleted in toto. The appellant craves leave to add,\namend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, or delete any or all grounds of appeal

RUSSELL ADRIAN RODRIGUES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No98/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Russel Adrian Rodrigues, Vs. Ito, Ward-23(3)(1), 101, Diiago, “B” Sherly Ranjan Mumbai Road, Bandra West, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adwpr 7259 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Impugned Order Dated 28/12/2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: – 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal On Account Of Non-Compliance Of Section 249(4)(A) & 249(4)(B) Of The It Act., 1961 Completely Disregarding The Fact That Assessee Has Filed The Return & Paid The Due Tax Thereon As Mentioned In The Column 8.1 Of The Appeal Form No. 35. The Appellant Therefore Prays To Remand Back The Matter To Hon. Cit(A) For A Fresh Adjudication On Merits.

249(4)(b) of the IT Act., 1961 completely disregarding the fact that Assessee has filed the Return and paid the due tax thereon as mentioned in the column 8.1 of the Appeal Form No. 35. The Appellant therefore prays to remand back the matter to Hon. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. 2 Russell Adrian Rodrigues

MR RAHAT MOHAMMED RIYAZUDDIN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

249 contemplates that the CIT(A) may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period, if he is satisfied that there was a “sufficient cause” for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, it has been 6 Rahat Mohammed Riyazuddin Shaikh, AY 2017-18 used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression

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

Reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act culminated into passing of Assessment Order, dated 26/03/2015, whereby the total income of the Appellant was assessed at INR 249

GOLDEN ROSACEAE REALTORS,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KALYAN

In the result, the present Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated which culminated into the Assessment Year: 2016-17 order, dated 23/03/2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. By way of the aforesaid order, the income of the Appellant was assessed by INR 2,56,00,000/- after making addition

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)

249 r.w.s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 4. The Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 07.03.2024 is bad in law. Therefore, should be set aside. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,47,790/- made by the Ld.AO, being unexplained money

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

PHILOMENA PAUL FERNANDESV ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSEMENT CENTRE (ITO WARD 22(2)(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2017-18

section 249(4) of the Act shall apply to original return of income required to be filed u/s. 139 of the Act and the same will not apply to the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

249  The 'B' Bench of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Srinivasa Rao The 'B' Bench of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Srinivasa Rao The 'B' Bench of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Srinivasa Rao Hoskote in ITA.1154 & 1155/Bang/2015 dated Hoskote in ITA.1154 & 1155/Bang/2015 dated 21.02.2018 Further, different Benches of the ITAT have held that section 153 Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

249  The 'B' Bench of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Srinivasa Rao The 'B' Bench of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Srinivasa Rao The 'B' Bench of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Srinivasa Rao Hoskote in ITA.1154 & 1155/Bang/2015 dated Hoskote in ITA.1154 & 1155/Bang/2015 dated 21.02.2018 Further, different Benches of the ITAT have held that section 153 Further

URMISH M. UDANI,MUMBAI vs. ACI 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nSHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 6144/Mum/2017\nAssessment Year: 2009-10\nShri Urmish M. Udani\nRH-12, J-12, Prabhukrupa\nSector-6, Vashi\nNavi Mumbai - 400705\n[PAN: AAGPU5477P]\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nAsst. Commissioner of Income\nVs\nTax – 10(3), Mumbai\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nAssessee by : Shri Madhur Agrawal/Shri Fenil Bhatt, A/Rs\nRevenue by: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date

249 in identical fact situation dismissed the Revenue's appeal by holding that\nwhere the period of issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has not expired, then reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. GHANSHYAM RASIKLAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment u/s 147 was invalid, arguing that the information came from a search on a third party and hence proceedings should have been taken under Section 153C instead. Both the AO and the CIT(A) have rightly rejected these technical objections. The Revenue fully supports the CIT(A)'s findings on this aspect: Section 147/148 was correctly invoked

SUSHMA HARESH UBALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

249(4) of the Act and wrongly interpreting the provisions of the said section read with S.234B and 208 of the act. c) The learned CIT(A) ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to give response to the applicability of the provisions of S.294(b) of the act. The natural justice requires that the proper opportunity