BHUSHAN VASANT PARELKAR,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

41,69,000/- as Short Term Capital Gains. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Ld. AO of not allowing the exemption w/s 54F for investment in new property. 3. In the present appeal, essentially the issue to be decided is on legal ground, challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 on account of being barred

KETUKUMAR KRISHNAVADAN PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

1)(b) of the Act, and deserve to be dropped. 10 ITA No.4502/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19 Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh 6.2 As a consequence the reassessment order passed on 02/03/2023 becomes void ab initio and the addition made therein does not hold any legs to stand in the eyes of law. Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee stands allowed

KETUKUMAR KRISHNAVADAN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

1)(b) of the Act, and deserve to be dropped. 10 ITA No.4502/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19 Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh 6.2 As a consequence the reassessment order passed on 02/03/2023 becomes void ab initio and the addition made therein does not hold any legs to stand in the eyes of law. Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee stands allowed

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 19. Inevitable conclusion is that High Court has wrongly applied Adani Exports case (supra) which has no application to the case on the facts in view of the conceptual difference between section 143(1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

41 Mr. Binod Kumar Singh "From the condition of not being resident in India in nine out often preceding years laid down in sub-section (6) of section 6, it does not automatically follow that for being ordinarily resident in India, one should be resident in India for eight years. A resident in India will be an ordinarily resident

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

41,96,29,042/- on account of Alleged Unaccounted Stock and Profit on Sale of Unaccounted Stock as taxable income. ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said disallowance made

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

section 41 (2) and the excess over the actual cost of the capital asset realized would be taxable as capital gain. The Ld. D.R. further argued that even if the contention of Ld. A.R. is accepted for a moment that transfer of net assets in consideration of allotment of equity/debt instruments of the other company would be a case

SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Him.

B-16, Rajhans Coop. HSG Society Ltd. Jitendra Road, Malad East, Mumbai - 400097 . Maharashtra [PAN: AATPP9539N] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer 41(3)(4), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Ravindra Poojary For the Respondent/Department : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat Date Conclusion of hearing : 12.11.2025 Pronouncement of order

M/S. SIMTOOLS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3) ( EARSTWHILE DCIT- CENT. CIR-42), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

41,753/-) and seizure of gold, diamond jewellery, watches worth Rs. 4,69,82,272/-( out of such items found of Rs. 19,43,70,069/-). That assessee company is one of the entities amongst the 200 odd entities floated by Lodha Group. That assessee was not covered u/s. 132 of the Act. He observed that during the search

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

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

41,04,198/-. Aggrieved . Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but ld CIT(A) ld CIT(A) allowed only part relief to the assessee. part relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are before the Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are before

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

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

41,04,198/-. Aggrieved . Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but ld CIT(A) ld CIT(A) allowed only part relief to the assessee. part relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are before the Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are before

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

41 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction 139(1) the said sum was shown as receivable. The appellant contends that the said amount was received in cash during the year. The A.O. has not accepted the said explanation and hence the same has an implication on the Peak Negative Cash that has been offered as income in the subsequent year