ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub- section (3). (5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order under section 92CA and forwards such order to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub- section (3). (5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order under section 92CA and forwards such order to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer

DEEPAK KAKUBHAI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

250\nTotal\n1,37,55,700\n9,48,61,117\n10,86,16,817\n23. On the basis of the aforesaid workings, the Assessing\nOfficer made additions under section 69 of the Act on account\nof alleged cash loans and under section 56 of the Act on\naccount of notional interest thereon for the respective\n assessment years

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2017 assessment year 2017-18 to 2019-2020 respectively. 2020 respectively. 2. As facts are identical, these appeals were heard together and As facts are identical, these appeals were heard together and As facts are identical, these appeals

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2017 assessment year 2017-18 to 2019-2020 respectively. 2020 respectively. 2. As facts are identical, these appeals were heard together and As facts are identical, these appeals were heard together and As facts are identical, these appeals

BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2017 assessment year 2017-18 to 2019-2020 respectively. 2020 respectively. 2. As facts are identical, these appeals were heard together and As facts are identical, these appeals were heard together and As facts are identical, these appeals

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

reassessment are accordingly rejected. The ground no. The ground no. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. the appeal is dismissed. Estate of Vandravan P Shah Estate of Vandravan P Shah ITA No. 5401, 5402 & 5403/MUM/2024 13. The ground Nos s. 3 and 4 of the appeal relate to the merit of . 3 and 4 of the appeal relate

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

250 dated 15.05.2023 was received on the e mail ID of the Chartered Accountant, pursuant to which partial mail ID of the Chartered Accountant, pursuant to which partial mail ID of the Chartered Accountant, pursuant to which partial submissions were filed on 30.06.2023. It was the bona fide submissions were filed on 30.06.2023. It was the bona fide submissions were

DONA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

250 dated 15.05.2023 was received on the e mail ID of the Chartered Accountant, pursuant to which partial mail ID of the Chartered Accountant, pursuant to which partial mail ID of the Chartered Accountant, pursuant to which partial submissions were filed on 30.06.2023. It was the bona fide submissions were filed on 30.06.2023. It was the bona fide submissions were

KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

4. In the meantime, the reassessment proceedings were initiated in my case for AY initiated in my case for AY 2015-16 by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 16 by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 16 by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29th June

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 69C of the Act on account of alleged commission stated to have been paid for arranging the said accommodation entries. 4. The aforesaid additions were confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1236/Mum/2019. In the said proceedings the assessee raised a legal ground challenging

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 69C of the Act on account of alleged commission stated to have been paid for arranging the said accommodation entries. 4. The aforesaid additions were confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1236/Mum/2019. In the said proceedings the assessee raised a legal ground challenging

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 69C of the Act on account of alleged commission stated to have been paid for arranging the said accommodation entries. 4. The aforesaid additions were confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1236/Mum/2019. In the said proceedings the assessee raised a legal ground challenging

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 69C of the Act on account of alleged commission stated to have been paid for arranging the said accommodation entries. 4. The aforesaid additions were confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1236/Mum/2019. In the said proceedings the assessee raised a legal ground challenging

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 69C of the Act on account of alleged commission stated to have been paid for arranging the said accommodation entries. 4. The aforesaid additions were confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1236/Mum/2019. In the said proceedings the assessee raised a legal ground challenging

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 69C of the Act on account of alleged commission stated to have been paid for arranging the said accommodation entries. 4. The aforesaid additions were confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1236/Mum/2019. In the said proceedings the assessee raised a legal ground challenging