JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

263 on the ground that reassessment order dated 09.03.20203 09.03.20203 passed under section 147 is passed under section 147 is itself

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

263 of the Act in respect of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. 12. In order to adjudicate the controversy, it is necessary to first examine the statutory framework governing search assessments and the requirement of approval under section 153D of the Act. Section 153D of the Act mandates that

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

263 of the Act in respect of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. 12. In order to adjudicate the controversy, it is necessary to first examine the statutory framework governing search assessments and the requirement of approval under section 153D of the Act. Section 153D of the Act mandates that

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

263 of the Act in respect of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. 12. In order to adjudicate the controversy, it is necessary to first examine the statutory framework governing search assessments and the requirement of approval under section 153D of the Act. Section 153D of the Act mandates that

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

263 of the Act in respect of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. 12. In order to adjudicate the controversy, it is necessary to first examine the statutory framework governing search assessments and the requirement of approval under section 153D of the Act. Section 153D of the Act mandates that

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

263 of the Act in respect of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. 12. In order to adjudicate the controversy, it is necessary to first examine the statutory framework governing search assessments and the requirement of approval under section 153D of the Act. Section 153D of the Act mandates that

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

263 of the Act in respect of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. 12. In order to adjudicate the controversy, it is necessary to first examine the statutory framework governing search assessments and the requirement of approval under section 153D of the Act. Section 153D of the Act mandates that

SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment proceedings. Holding such action to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests Holding such action to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests Holding such action to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Principal Commissioner i of the Revenue, the Principal Commissioner invoked section nvoked section 263

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, the alternate claim of exemption under section 10(21) is made by the assessee. From the perusal of records all the details pertaining to the alternate claim of the assessee have been submitted and are part of the records. Therefore there is merit in the claim of the ld AR that

APURVA NATVAR PARIKH & CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

section 263 of\nthe Act on the observations that no enquiries were conducted by the\nld.Assessing Officer in the matter concerning One time membership\nfee of Rs 5.62 cr.as the impugned sum was being taxed by the\nDepartment as revenue receipt proportionately for 25 years. According\nto him, Rs 2.37 cr. was liable to be taxed in the impugned year

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

263 of the Act the specified commission cannot enhance the scope of the assessment beyond the provisions contained in Section 143(1) of the Act as originally available to the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the Learned PCIT has directed the Assessing Officer to carry out inquiry in the matter of claim of deduction of INR.1

VINAY ARUN JOSHI,THANE vs. PCIT CENTRAL MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment by invoking his\njurisdiction u/s Section 263 of the Act unless and until he draws reference\nto any incriminating

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

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 15[sub- sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

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

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 15[sub- sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

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:

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (14B) The central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance of directions by the dispute resolution panel, so as to impart greater efficiency transparency and account ability

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this or reference under this

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this or reference under this

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment proceedings, the period of limitation provided for under sub- section (2) of section 263 of the Act would begin