DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

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

269 SS as discussed above." 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty taken as the relevant date as far as the section 275(1)(c) of the Act is concerned. In these cases, the quantum proceedings were completed by the AO on 17th/18th December

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

269 taxman 195 (SC)].\n11. Further, recently, in almost identical facts and circumstances as in the present\ncase, this Court in the case of Prabhakar Nerulkar Vs. PCIT, Panaji, Goa (Writ\nPetition No.443 of 2024 Goa Bench decided on 21.07.2025), held that the\nreopening notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section

SHIVRAM S SHETTY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

269 taxman 195 (SC)].\n11. Further, recently, in almost identical facts and circumstances as in the present\ncase, this Court in the case of Prabhakar Nerulkar Vs. PCIT, Panaji, Goa (Writ\nPetition No.443 of 2024 Goa Bench decided on 21.07.2025), held that the\nreopening notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

269 of 2022. Ors, Dated 27/09/2022 reported in [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Delhi) After taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act sent through email without digital/physical signature shall constitute valid notice provided the same meets the requirements of Section 282A

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

reassessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the act on 29/12/2017 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,461,230/–. 12. Assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) challenging the reopening of the assessment as well as the additions on the merits of the case, the learned

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceedings on the ground of invalid invalid sanction M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 obtained u/s 151 of the Act tained u/s 151 of the Act , which is issued

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceedings on the ground of invalid invalid sanction M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 obtained u/s 151 of the Act tained u/s 151 of the Act , which is issued

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceedings on the ground of invalid invalid sanction M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 obtained u/s 151 of the Act tained u/s 151 of the Act , which is issued

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceedings on the ground of invalid invalid sanction M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 obtained u/s 151 of the Act tained u/s 151 of the Act , which is issued

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceedings on the ground of invalid invalid sanction M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 obtained u/s 151 of the Act tained u/s 151 of the Act , which is issued

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

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

269 of 2022. Ors, Dated 27/09/2022 reported in [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Delhi) After taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act sent through email without digital/physical signature shall constitute valid notice provided the same meets the requirements of Section 282A

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

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

269 of 2022. Ors, Dated 27/09/2022 reported in [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Delhi) After taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act sent through email without digital/physical signature shall constitute valid notice provided the same meets the requirements of Section 282A

DCIT CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

269 of 2022. Ors, Dated 27/09/2022 reported in [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Delhi) After taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act sent through email without digital/physical signature shall constitute valid notice provided the same meets the requirements of Section 282A

SIEMENS MOBILITY GMBH,GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAX), 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

269 (Delhi)(SB) has considered this aspect and held that "the payment made to the assessee for use of software in the equipment did not amount to royalty either under the Income- tax Act or the DTAA." The facts involved in the instant case are akin to those considered by the Special Bench in the afore-noted case. The Learned

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX vs. DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

269 SS as discussed above.\"\n12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid\njudgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty\nproceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date is to be\ntaken as the relevant date as far as the section 275(1)(c) of the Act\nis concerned. In these cases, the quantum

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

269 SS as discussed above.\"\n12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid\njudgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty\nproceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date is to be\ntaken as the relevant date as far as the section 275(1)(c) of the Act\nis concerned. In these cases, the quantum

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order dated March 20, 2023 which was passed\nby Faceless Assessing Officer ('FAO'). Accordingly, the order under Section 263\ndated February 13, 2025 is bad in law and prayed to be quashed.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT has\nerred in not passing the order u/s 263 within the time

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

269/- out of logistic expenses of\nRs.3,48,37,713/- incurred by the assessee and paid to its sister's\nconcern M/s Hazel Logistic Pvt. Ltd. For ready reference section\n40A(2)(b) of the Act is reproduced as under:\n\"40A(2)(b) The persons referred to in clause (a) are the following, namely:-\n(i)\nwhere the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TMF HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings, not judicial review at the notice stage. Hence Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring these two landmark decisions.” 5. Alternatively, the Ld. AR filed a paper book containing documents pertaining to the factual aspects of the case and also submitted a written submission. The Ld. AR contended that the issue under consideration was duly examined during the scrutiny