JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

263 of the Act. 2.3 In response, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Offic In response, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Offic In response, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had indeed examined the allowability of the CSR expenditure under had indeed examined the allowability of the CSR expenditure under had indeed examined the allowability

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

reassessment order void ab initio. Consequently, the PCIT's order under section 263, which was based on this void order, was also unsustainable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "139(4)", "143(1)", "143(3)", "148", "143(2

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

2 and 3 of the appeal, the assessee, through he assessee, through its Ld. Counsel, has challenged the very validity of the reassessment its Ld. Counsel, has challenged the very validity of the reassessment its Ld. Counsel, has challenged the very validity of the reassessment proceedings undertaken under section 147 of the Act, contending ceedings undertaken under section

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 cannot be examined in proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. It is well- proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect

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

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

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

263 of the Act and that, will cause serious hardship to the tax payer concerned and this is not intended by the legislation by the insertion of the Explanation 2. 18. When we examine the facts of the present case in the context of the above legal position, we notice that entitlement of the assessee for exemption under section

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

2) for A.Y. 2017-18 was already expired as on date of search conducted on the appellant and hence, assessment for the 18 Rakesh Kothotia, Mumbai. year was unabated. In this regard, vide letter dated 20.03.2025, the A.O was asked to furnish whether any assessment proceeding was pending for the year under consideration as on date of search conducted

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) provides that when the assessment\nmade under Section 153(A)(1) is annulled, the assessment or reassessment\nthat stood abated shall stand revived.\n\n10. Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, it\nbecomes clear that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, it is\nonly the assessment/reassessment proceedings that are pending

SAVITA HOMEMAKERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 263 is not applicable for AY prior to 01.06.2015 : “1. Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd., [2023] 155 taxmann.com 408 (Bombay/ (2023) 456 ITR 336 (Bombay) 2. Ms. Sangeeta Jain, [2024] 168 taxmann.com 276 (Delhi)/(2025) 472 ITR 662 (Delhi) 3. M/s. Metacaps Engineering & Mahendra Construction Co. (JV), LT.A. No. 2895/Mum/2014 4. Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, ITA No.3259/Mum/2017 5. M/s Amira

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

2) shall apply apply apply to to to the the the following following following classes classes classes of of of assessments, assessments, assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of sub to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5), be sections

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

2) shall apply apply apply to to to the the the following following following classes classes classes of of of assessments, assessments, assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of sub to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5), be sections

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)

2 to Section 263 of the Act provides that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue if in the opinion of specified Commissioner such order has been passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made or such order is passed allowing

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

reassessment shall be passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A or section 153C except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. The requirement of approval under section 153D is therefore not a mere procedural formality or administrative endorsement. The statutory scheme envisages that due application of mind. The approval under section 153D thus constitutes an important statutory safeguard

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

reassessment shall be passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A or section 153C except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. The requirement of approval under section 153D is therefore not a mere procedural formality or administrative endorsement. The statutory scheme envisages that due application of mind. The approval under section 153D thus constitutes an important statutory safeguard

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

reassessment shall be passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A or section 153C except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. The requirement of approval under section 153D is therefore not a mere procedural formality or administrative endorsement. The statutory scheme envisages that due application of mind. The approval under section 153D thus constitutes an important statutory safeguard

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

reassessment shall be passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A or section 153C except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. The requirement of approval under section 153D is therefore not a mere procedural formality or administrative endorsement. The statutory scheme envisages that due application of mind. The approval under section 153D thus constitutes an important statutory safeguard