BIRLA CARBON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

253 of the Act. That however, no amendment is made in section 263 of the Act as a consequence of insertion of section 144C of the Act to deem such orders being capable of being revised. That therefore, the memorandum, circular, etc. support the Assessee's stand that once the Assessing Officer passes an order in accordance with the Directions

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmondelez India Foods Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Mumbai- Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, 8 Tower-3 (Wing C), One 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar International Cente Bhavan, Maharshi (Formerly Indiabulls Finance Karve Road, Mumbai- Centre) Parel, Mumbai- 400020 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc0460H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakker & Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Pcit, Mumbai-8 (‘The Ld. Pcit’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

253 of the Act. That however, no amendment is made in section 263 of the Act as a consequence of insertion of section 1440 Ef the Act to deem such orders being capable of being revised. That therefore, the memorandum, Circular, etc. support the Astesser's stand that once the Assessing Officer passes an order in acreedente with the Directions

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

253.\n21. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee\nchallenging the impugned findings in holding grant-in-aid received\nby the assessee company as capital in nature contended inter-alia\nthat since the grant-in-aid held by the assessee company for\npayment of compensation towards purchase of land to the land\nowner, rehabilitation

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

LABDHI LOGICAL FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LLP,DOMBIVALT EAST, THANE vs. ITO 3(2) , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarlabdhi Logical Financial Ito-3(2), Solutions Llp 2Nd Floor, Rani B-22, Gao Devi Prasad, Vs. Mansion, Murbad Domvivali East, Thane, Road, Kalyan, Maharashtra-421 201 Maharashtra- 421 301 Pan/Gir No. Aaefl7209G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026

reassessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section144B of the Act. Condonation of Delay 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 21 days( as per affidavit 20 days) in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit of Shri Pravin Jain, partner

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A of the 1961 Act. However, the completed/unabated assessments

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A of the 1961 Act. However, the completed/unabated assessments

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A of the 1961 Act. However, the completed/unabated assessments

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

253. 21. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned findings in holding grant-in-aid received by the assessee company as capital in nature contended inter-alia that since the grant-in-aid held by the assessee company for payment of compensation towards purchase of land to the land owner, rehabilitation

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

253. 21. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned findings in holding grant-in-aid received by the assessee company as capital in nature contended inter-alia that since the grant-in-aid held by the assessee company for payment of compensation towards purchase of land to the land owner, rehabilitation

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

253. 21. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned findings in holding grant-in-aid received by the assessee company as capital in nature contended inter-alia that since the grant-in-aid held by the assessee company for payment of compensation towards purchase of land to the land owner, rehabilitation

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

253. 21. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned findings in holding grant-in-aid received by the assessee company as capital in nature contended inter-alia that since the grant-in-aid held by the assessee company for payment of compensation towards purchase of land to the land owner, rehabilitation

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

253(3) of the Act, are being treated as being filed within limitation as the appeal has been filed within the extended time allowed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order, dated 23/03/2020 and 27/04/2021 passed in the Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 read with order, dated 23/09/2021, passed

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)

253) clearly applies to the facts of the case at hand and respectfully following the full bench decision of jurisdictional High Court, the notice issued under section 148 is held to be defective. 48.1. The cumulative effect of our findings leads inexorably to the conclusion that both the reassessment proceedings and the resultant assessment orders are unsustainable. The 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)

253) clearly applies to the facts of the case at hand and respectfully following the full bench decision of jurisdictional High Court, the notice issued under section 148 is held to be defective. 48.1. The cumulative effect of our findings leads inexorably to the conclusion that both the reassessment proceedings and the resultant assessment orders are unsustainable. The notice under

GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. 7. A similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd [2018] 96 taxmann.com 303/257 Taxman 512/ [2019] 416 ITR 458. As far as the question with regard to Focus Marketing

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

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

5 sons, had inherited\na land on death of their father Shri Laxmi Singh Udit Singh in the\nyear 1986.\n2. The assessee's mother and sisters relinquished their respective\nrights in favour of the sons and their brothers.\n3. Thus, each brother inherited 1/5th share in the land, assesse\nbeing one of them.\n4. On 09.10.2002 the assesse along