JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered during the course of the search proceedings material gathered during the course of the search proceedings material gathered during the course of the search proceedings establishes something contrary to it. If there is nothing on record to establishes something contrary to it. If there is nothing on record to establishes

INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VIBGYOR TEXOTECH LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment\ncompleted under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act\") vide order dated 30.03.2016, the\ntotal income of the assessee was determined at 28,34,12,447/-,\nand penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were\ninitiated. The quantum matter travelled up to the Tribunal, and\npursuant

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

reassessment proceedings have been initiated only with a view to revive original assessment proceedings which got time barred and hence ought to be quashed, Without prejudice, passing the final assessment order as against the draft assessment order Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 9. without prejudice, erred in upholding the validity of the draft order dated

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

274", "Section 36(1)(iii)", "Section 143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether additions made under section 153C r.w.s 153A for unabated assessment years are valid without incriminating material." } } " } } } Whether reassessment

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order accepted the assessee's revised return without making any addition or disallowance. Additionally, the penalty notice was found to be invalid due to the non-specification of the limb under which the penalty was initiated.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "148", "143(3)", "147", "144B", "274

ALBERT JOSEPH ROZARIO,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

274 which is applicable w.e.f. 01-04-2022 Thus, the Legislature has consciously not inserted the proviso to section 151 with retrospective effect. 23. It was further submitted that proviso to section 151 cannot resuscitate an approval which was illegal when it was granted. As already submitted earlier, approval of a specified authority is a jurisdictional requirement

ALRAMEEZ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act was issued. It is pertinent to mention here that appeal of the assessee in quantum has already been disposed of by the Ld. CIT (A) against the assessee vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/APL-1/2022-23/1046156273. It is further noticed that order of penalty u/s 270A was finalized and imposed on 01.02.2022 i.e. without waiting for the outcome

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

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessment order, and the demand notice were quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "151", "147", "148", "149", "133(6)", "44AD", "250", "148A", "271(1)(c)", "274

M/S MUMBADEVI VEYHICLES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Mumbadevi Ito Ward 41(4)(2), Veyhicles Room No. 854B, 8Th Shop No. 18, Suyash Vs. Floor, Kautilya Shopping Centre, Nnp, A. Bhavan, Bkc, K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Bandra (East), (E), Mumbai-400 065 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaofm0851F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026

274 read with section 271(1)(c) does not specify the exact limb, namely whether the penalty is for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty proceedings stand vitiated, the learned AR placed reliance on decisions of Co-ordinate Bench in case of M/s. Korbusier Kinema Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.1016/M/2025

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred

TIRUPATI REDDY MUKKU,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-27(3), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act vide order, dated 28/11/2013, 2 accepting the returned income of INR 3,26,15,290/-, (which included additional income of INR 2,30,96,506/-), as the assessed income. The Assessing Officer also recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty 6. proceedings 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

reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The primary contention was that the notice under section 148 was issued without proper approval from the competent authority as required by section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also argued that the notice was barred by limitation.", "held": "The Tribunal held that

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessments u/s 153C for the assessment assessment years for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act, but in those assessment those assessments, he did not make any addition on the basis of not make any addition on the basis of documents for which satisfaction was which satisfaction

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessments u/s 153C for the assessment assessment years for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act, but in those assessment those assessments, he did not make any addition on the basis of not make any addition on the basis of documents for which satisfaction was which satisfaction

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessments u/s 153C for the assessment assessment years for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act, but in those assessment those assessments, he did not make any addition on the basis of not make any addition on the basis of documents for which satisfaction was which satisfaction

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessments u/s 153C for the assessment assessment years for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act, but in those assessment those assessments, he did not make any addition on the basis of not make any addition on the basis of documents for which satisfaction was which satisfaction