ACIT-16(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. FAKHRUDDIN TAIYEBALI PADARIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit- 16(2), Mumbai Fakhruddin Taiyebali Padaria 5Th Floor, Shabbir Place, 80 Vs. Dr. A.L. Nair Road, Mumbai- 400008. Pan: Abdpp 7103 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025

reassessment proceedings on a non-existent person is a jurisdictional defect and cannot cured under section 292B or under section

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

reassessment order:\n6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the mistake on the part of the\nLd. AO in quoting section 56(2)(viib) instead of 56(2)(viia) of the Act\nis a curable defect under section 292B

SHRI HIRACHAND JAVERCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Hirachand Javerchand Jain Dcit Cc-4(2) 15, Dadi Seth Agairy Lane, Room No.-655, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Mumbai- 400 002 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aadpj3101C Appellant Respondent

292B of the Act, therefore impugned assessment order has to be treated accordingly. In view of above discussion, we reject the contentions of assessee challenging validity of the assessment and accordingly dismiss the Ground No. 1(a) – (b) one of the appeal. 5. The ground No. 2 (two) of the appeal relates to addition of ₹ 85, 16, 406/-made

M/S. GYANSHANKAR INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P. LTD.(BEFORE AMALGAMATION M/S. STELLAR CREDIT& E-TRADING P. LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-7(1)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2012-13

section 292B. However, in the instant case the reassessment order has been passed in the name of the amalgamated entity

ACIT CIRCLE-7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PIRAMAL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2338/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Piramal Enterprises Tax, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No. Ltd. 128A, 1 St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Successor In Interest To M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Piramal International Pvt. फनाभ/ Ltd. 10, Piramal Tower, G.K. Vs. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcp6125D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Mansi Padhiyar, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 09.04.2021

reassessment proceedings after pointing out the actual fact of amalgamation before erstwhile AO, the assessment framed by a non-jurisdictional AO cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. With regard to decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, we find that all those decisions were already considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki

ACIT CENT. CIR -7(1) , MUMBAI vs. DR. D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

reassessment would be six AYs preceding the year of search. It was therefore held by the Hon’ble High Court that, the position of law expounded in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd (supra) would indeed apply to all search’s u/s 132 of the Act, conducted prior to 01.-04.2017 [In the present case search took place

D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

reassessment would be six AYs preceding the year of search. It was therefore held by the Hon’ble High Court that, the position of law expounded in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd (supra) would indeed apply to all search’s u/s 132 of the Act, conducted prior to 01.-04.2017 [In the present case search took place

ACIT CC -7(1) , MUMBAI vs. DR. D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

reassessment would be six AYs preceding the year of search. It was therefore held by the Hon’ble High Court that, the position of law expounded in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd (supra) would indeed apply to all search’s u/s 132 of the Act, conducted prior to 01.-04.2017 [In the present case search took place

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -1 PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

reassessment proceedings void ab initio. The defect goes to the root of the matter and is not a mere procedural irregularity capable of being cured under section 292B

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 PALGHAR, THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

reassessment proceedings void ab initio. The defect goes to the root of the matter and is not a mere procedural irregularity capable of being cured under section 292B

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-1 PALGHAR , MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

reassessment proceedings void ab initio. The defect goes to the root of the matter and is not a mere procedural irregularity capable of being cured under section 292B

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

reassessment proceedings void ab initio. The defect goes to the root of the matter and is not a mere procedural irregularity capable of being cured under section 292B

SAMADHAN KRISHNA KATEKAR,RAIGAD vs. ITO WD 3 PANVEL, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshmr. Samadhan Krishna Ito. Ward-3, Katekar, L/H Of Late Krishna Vs. Panvel Range, Trifed Tower, Kathari Katekar, Opp. Khanda Colony, At Dhutum, Taluka-Uran, Navi Mumbai-410206. District-Raigad. Pan: Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Prakash Pandit (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement :12.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (Act) Is Directed Against

reassessment order is void and nullity. (3) In the fact and circumstances of the case and in law Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming assessing officer action in taxing Rs. 2.94 Crore as short- term capital gain when no transfer of the plot has taken place as alleged by ITA No. 3112/Mum/2017- 3112 Mum 2017 Samadhan Krishna Katekar assessing officer within

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

292B. The addition under section 68 was upheld despite reference to section 69A in the show cause notice, holding that the assessee was not prejudiced and had failed to establish genuineness. The ground relating to penalty was held to be premature. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. 12. Further aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee

SUREAKSHA DB REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 30(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

292B. It appears that the said decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court was not brought to the notice of honourable tribunal at the time of arguing the case of luxury goods retail private limited which is directly on this point and by a superior authority. 27, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the issues

ACIT, CIRCLE 24(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NILKAMAL CRATES & CONTAINERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 292B. It was the submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that re-assessment would be valid if “reason to believe” exists, even during the pending proceedings. It was the submission that the approval may be treated from the specified authority being the minor mistake is a curable one. ITA No.3763 & CO No. 146/Mum/2025 Nilkamal Crates & Containers

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SUPERWAVE CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD.(AMALGAMATED WITH M/S.VALENTINE MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer - 8(3)(3) V. M/S. Superwave Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor {Amalgamated With M/S. Valentine Aayakar Bhavan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.,} Flat No. 253, 25Th Floor M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Kalpataru Horizon, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400 031 Pan: Aajcs3336H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N. Kapadia & Shri Navinkumar Mishra Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

reassessment order made is bad in law. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited [107 taxman.com 375] and CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 dated 02.11.2017. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a chart showing the similarities between

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SPOT LIGHT CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer - 8(3)(3) V. M/S. Spot Light Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor {Amalgamated With M/S. Valentine Aayakar Bhavan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.,} M.K. Road Flat No. 253, 25Th Floor Mumbai-400 020 Kalpataru Horizon, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400 031 Pan: Aalcs4106K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N. Kapadiaa & Shri Navinkumar Mishra Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

reassessment order made is bad in law. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited [107 taxman.com 375] and CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 dated 02.11.2017. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a chart showing the similarities between

VIVEK MEHROTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Vivek Mehrotra V. Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(2) V. Shri Vivek Mehrotra Central Range - 3 Office No. 116, Churchgate Chamber Above Greater Bank, 5 New Marine Lines Room No. 1913, 19Th Floor Mumbai -400020 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aahpm4127B (Appellant) (Respondent)

292B of the Act. The assessee submits that firstly, mentioning section 153A at different places of the assessment order and also obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax as per section 153D of the Act cannot be regarded as a mistake. Further, the present is a case, where, the assessing officer, lacked jurisdiction under section 153A