JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

49,000/-. The AO is directed to make . The AO is directed to make an enquiry in this matter and re an enquiry in this matter and re-assess the income after giving an assess the income after giving an opportunity of being heard rtunity of being heard to the assessee.” 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing\nthe impugned orders dated 30 July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said\nprovisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the\nAssessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.\n2. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or in passing\nthe impugned orders dated 30 July 2022 and/or 28th July 2023 under the said\nprovisions. The actions are contrary to law, beyond the jurisdiction of the\nAssessing Officer, and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.\n\n2. erred in passing order under section 147 of the Act by reopening

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

49 taxmann.com 599 (delhi taxmann.com 599 (delhi-Trib.) held that where the secured where the secured creditor to cover possession and control of assets of an assessee due itor to cover possession and control of assets of an assessee due itor to cover possession and control of assets of an assessee due to default committed in repayment of to default

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

49 taxmann.com 599 (delhi taxmann.com 599 (delhi-Trib.) held that where the secured where the secured creditor to cover possession and control of assets of an assessee due itor to cover possession and control of assets of an assessee due itor to cover possession and control of assets of an assessee due to default committed in repayment of to default

PRAFUL ARJUN RANE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

49 XX XX.\n\n50.\nThe aforesaid decision was rendered in the contest of Section\n153A of the Act. Although, the rationale as set out in the said\ndecision resonate with us, we are unable to concur that\nissuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act is optional.\nOnce a search has been conducted under Section

NARESH AMRATLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-27(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires t determination of whether the time limit prescribed determination of whether the time limit prescribed determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to under section 149(1

MOHAMEDALI SHABANALI BADAMI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from

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

1)." 16.19 A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court 16.19 A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court 16.19 A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in case of Murli Agro Products Ltd Vs. CIT 49 (Nagpur Bench) in case

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

49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from

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

49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from

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

49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section 56 I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 Mr. Nilesh Bharani (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1