GOBINDRAM JAGDISH KAKWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the market value by appointing a Valuer since the value was much less and the assessee was unable to sell the unit. The assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54F of the entire capital gains made by him on the sale of unit. The assessee has invested a sum of Rs 64,00,000/- in new residential asset and documentary

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

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 and hence

ALRAMEEZ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

VINAY ARUN JOSHI,THANE vs. PCIT CENTRAL MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the\norder of such annulment by the Commissioner. Therefore, the intention of the\nlegislation seems to be that in case of search only the pending\nassessment/reassessment proceedings shall abate and the AO would assume\nthe jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' for the entire six years

ACIT - 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RISHABH DIAMOND PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross\nObjection by the assessee is partly allowed

1 to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, did not constitute valid 'information' for initiating reassessment proceedings. The court found that the reassessment was based on a 'change of opinion' and not on new tangible material, making the proceedings impermissible. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was void ab initio.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

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

sections": [ "148", "147", "50C", "2(47)", "139(1)", "45", "53A" ], "issues": "1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 148/147. 2. Determination

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

reassess the total income, taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns\" and as in the instant case the addition is based on the incriminating material such as the information qua selling of lands by the Assessee, found from the valuable group of cases

ADARSH DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 22(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

1,42,25,767. Accordingly, it was alleged that the assessee had not offered the differential amount of ₹69,40,767 to tax. Consequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and reassessment proceedings were initiated. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the properties had been sold in earlier financial years and that the agreements were registered

BAJRANGLAL BHAWARLAL SHARMA,BORIVALI EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Honble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in framing the impugned assessment order under section 143(3)/147 r.w.s.144B of the Act without complying with the jurisdictional and mandatory requirements and conditions envisaged in section 147/148/151

ACIT -7(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAZAGON DOCK SHIPBUILDERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Income Tax-7(1)(1), Ltd. Mumbai Mazdock House, Dockyard Vs. Road, Mazagon, Mumbai – 400010 (Pan: Aaacm8029) (Appellant) (Respondent)

1), dated 18.10.2024 passed against the assessment order by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6(3), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 24.01.2013 for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2 Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd. AY 2005-06 2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under

PANKAJ SURECH RACH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TAX WARD 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that the order is illegal, void and bad in law and ought to be quashed. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in passing the final and draft assessment order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard, that

PANKAJ DHANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-22(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

section 142 (1) of that act dated 1 November 2019\nwherein the assessee duly responded and submitted the\ncomplete information on 28 November 2019. Thus, when the\ninformation was examined, the learned assessing officer applied\nhis mind to the fact, and agreed and accepted the explanation of\nthe assessee, reopening on the same material makes the\nreassessment invalid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. NANIKRAM MENGHRAJ TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriito V/S. Nanikram Menghraj Trust Room No.618, Mtnl बनाम 113, 114 Navjivan, Building, Cumbala Hill, Commercial Building No.3, Peddar Road, Lamington Road, Maharashtra-400026 Mumbai Central, Maharashtra-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatn2215N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

reassessment was made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 11.12.2018 wherein the capital gains were computed after applying provision of section 50C of the Act by adopting stamp duty value for the purpose of working out the capital gains. Assessment was P a g e | 4 ITA No. 3162/Mum/2024 & CO. No. 136/Mum/2024

MATERIAL RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE16(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

reassessment and the consequential computation of long- term capital gains are reproduced hereunder. Sale proceeds 1,17,18,000 received on 05.08.2005 Less: Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 Rs 1,82,710 = 9,08,069 Indexed Cost 1,82,710 x 497/100 Rs. 9,08,069 1,45,327 11,23,163 Transfer charges paid to Society Brokerage