DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment is bad in law.” 2nd Rejoinder of Assessee: “Hence in furtherance to the earlier rejoinder, The Asessee submits how the case laws relied (which are not dealt in the rejoinder) on by the Department are not applicable to the present facts of the case: 1. Leader v. Duffey (1888) LR 13 App Cas 294 2. CIT v. Sodra Devi

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment is bad in law.” 2nd Rejoinder of Assessee: “Hence in furtherance to the earlier rejoinder, The Asessee submits how the case laws relied (which are not dealt in the rejoinder) on by the Department are not applicable to the present facts of the case: 1. Leader v. Duffey (1888) LR 13 App Cas 294 2. CIT v. Sodra Devi

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment is bad in law.” 2nd Rejoinder of Assessee: “Hence in furtherance to the earlier rejoinder, The Asessee submits how the case laws relied (which are not dealt in the rejoinder) on by the Department are not applicable to the present facts of the case: 1. Leader v. Duffey (1888) LR 13 App Cas 294 2. CIT v. Sodra Devi

DHARMENDRA VADILAL PARMAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, -32(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the legal grounds raised by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

reassessment has to be in accordance with the modes specified u/s. 282(1) of the Act and also in accordance with the Rule 127 of the IT Rules, 1962 which prescribes for service of the notice, summons, requisition, order and other communications. The relevant extract of the said provisions is cited herein under for ease of reference: “Section

ITO 24(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ASHOKKUMAR MURAJMAL RAIMALANI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3569/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer -24(1)(2), Room No.605, Piramal Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Lane,Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Ashokkumar Murajmal Raimalani, 2Nd Floor, 108, Zaveri Bazar, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058. Pan: Aaapr-8617-A .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam –Cit Dr ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Shah सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

section 282(2) of the Act. No doubt the assessment year under appeal is assessment year 2009-10, however, reassessment

DARSHANA JATIN SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 282 read with Rule 127 of the Income-\ntax Rules, 1962. It was contended that service of notice is a\njurisdictional requirement and that in the absence of valid\nservice, the reassessment

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment without service of the notice so issued upon the Assessee in accordance with section 282(1) of the Act read

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

reassessment Notices were stayed till further orders by this Court vide the aforesaid order dated 24th March 2022. Therefore, the controversy which has arisen for consideration is whether these impugned Notices were issued on or before 31st March, 2021 or thereafter. If this Court holds that the impugned Notices were validly issued under the unamended section

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment of income escaping assessment.\nName: N/A\nDesignation: N/A\nDate: N/A\nRemarks: I have perused the reasons recorded\nby the Assessing Officer and complied the\nnotices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.\n1961?\n25 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\n11. It is important to evaluate the provisions of sec.281A of the\nIncome-tax Act, which deals with authentication

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment is bad in law.”\n22\nJ Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\n3. New Nobel Education Society v. CCIT 2022 INSC\n1111\nComments: The Department has relied on the above case\nlaws to interpret the statue. It is not doubted that the words\n“and” and “or” have separate significance. The Department’s\ninterpretation of section 282A of the Act is misplaced

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

reassessment is bad in law.”\n2nd Rejoinder of Assessee:\n“Hence in furtherance to the earlier rejoinder, The Asessee\nsubmits how the case laws relied (which are not dealt in the\nrejoinder) on by the Department are not applicable to the\npresent facts of the case:\n1. Leader v. Duffey (1888) LR 13 App Cas 294\n2. CIT v. Sodra

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings culminated into passing into Assessment Order, dated 07/03/2024, under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made the following additions/disallowances while assessing the income of the Assessee at INR.52,54,550/- as against ‘Nil’ income 2 Assessment Year 2015-2016 offered to tax by the Assessee after claiming deduction under Section

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,

reassessment Notices were stayed till further orders by this Court vide the aforesaid order dated 24th March 2022. 2. Therefore, the controversy which has arisen for consideration is whether these impugned Notices were issued on or before 31st March, 2021 or thereafter. If this Court holds that the impugned Notices were validly issued under the unamended section

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)

reassessment Notices were stayed till further orders by this Court vide the aforesaid order dated 24th March 2022. 2. Therefore, the controversy which has arisen for consideration is whether these impugned Notices were issued on or before 31st March, 2021 or thereafter. If this Court holds that the impugned Notices were validly issued under the unamended section

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)

reassessment Notices were stayed till further orders by this Court vide the aforesaid order dated 24th March 2022. 2. Therefore, the controversy which has arisen for consideration is whether these impugned Notices were issued on or before 31st March, 2021 or thereafter. If this Court holds that the impugned Notices were validly issued under the unamended section

SANJAY BABAN VAITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment was completed on 24.03.2015 wherein addition of Rs.33,63,330/ 24.03.2015 wherein addition of Rs.33,63,330/- was made as short was made as short term capital gain on sale of sale of an immovable property. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) though appeal was filed by the assessee Before the Ld. CIT(A) though appeal was filed

BHUVNESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX P-CIT,MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited Pcit,Mumbai-1 710/A Wing Dattani Plaza Room No. 330, 3 R D Floor, Aayakar Vs. Commercial Premises, Safed Pool, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb4386N

282 Taxman 464 (SC) [2021] 130 taxmann.com 293 (Guj.) It is held that "5 The Tribunal has found that in the order passed by the PCIT, Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act, 1961 is made applicable. The Tribunal observed that the PCIT has not mentioned in the show cause notice to invoke the Explanation 2 of section

NITIN CHATURBHUG GARG ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

reassessment is not duly served upon, making the assessment proceeding void, ab initio. 2. The learned CIT has not considered that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is without proper jurisdiction and non-est, and consequently invalid. Hence, the order passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 was invalid, and defects in the notice are not curable