NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed

AMOHA TRADERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Justice Shri P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2007-08)

39. Now, we proceed to examine that whether section 292BB can be construed to be retrospective in the light of the above principles. It is also observed that section 292BB has been made effective by the Legislature from 1st April, 2008 and there is nothing in the enactment to show that section 292BB has retrospective operation

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-6, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

2 Assessment Years: 2011-12 66,39,90,746/- under normal provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed book profits under Section 115JB of the Act at INR 115,29,16,865/-. 5. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai that the Appellant had taken accommodation entries from two Delhi based entities, namely M/s Shivam Enterprises

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

reassessment is\nto be initiated to give effect to findings or directions\nof the appellate authority or the Court. That is a call\nto be taken by the Assessing Officer and not by the\nTribunal. The scheme of the Act does not permit\nconsiderations of safeguarding the interests of the revenue\nto have a role to play in the Tribunal

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

2) ....... (3) ....... Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before the 30th Sept., 2004, and where such assessment has become final and conclusive on or before that date, except in cases where a reassessment is required to be made in accordance with the provisions of s. 153A." (Emphasis, italicized

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice upon him. The said finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

39,38,254/-. When the matter stood thus, the assessing officer received information that the assessee had transferred certain receipts directly to its reserve under the head “life membership fee” etc which included an amount of Rs.2,00,50,000/- representing contribution from certain members towards various infrastructure facilities of the club for mutual benefit of the members

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

reassessment contrary to the scheme which required automated allocation. The present case stands on a different footing. Here, the notice under section 148 is not under challenge. The notice under section 143(2), which is subsequent to filing of return, was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit under section 144B

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings are the result of the only notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2018 7. The ld. counsel also submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, in absence of service of the said order u/s 127(2) on him that the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee must have been transferred after issuing the notice u/s 148 as the assessee

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings are the result of the only notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2018 7. The ld. counsel also submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, in absence of service of the said order u/s 127(2) on him that the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee must have been transferred after issuing the notice u/s 148 as the assessee

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings are the result of the only notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2018 7. The ld. counsel also submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, in absence of service of the said order u/s 127(2) on him that the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee must have been transferred after issuing the notice u/s 148 as the assessee

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings are the result of the only notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2018 7. The ld. counsel also submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, in absence of service of the said order u/s 127(2) on him that the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee must have been transferred after issuing the notice u/s 148 as the assessee

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings are the result of the only notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2018 7. The ld. counsel also submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, in absence of service of the said order u/s 127(2) on him that the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee must have been transferred after issuing the notice u/s 148 as the assessee

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings are the result of the only notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2018 7. The ld. counsel also submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, in absence of service of the said order u/s 127(2) on him that the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee must have been transferred after issuing the notice u/s 148 as the assessee

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings are the result of the only notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2018 7. The ld. counsel also submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, in absence of service of the said order u/s 127(2) on him that the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee must have been transferred after issuing the notice u/s 148 as the assessee

SHAPOORJI PALLANJI AND COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

2) Sheth Brother vs JCIT (2001) 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) 3) CIT vs Corporation Bank Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) 4) Garden Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (1999) 237 ITR 668 (Guj.) 5) CIT vs Hickson & Dadajee Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 368 (Born.) 6) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 7) Garden Silk