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

51. Given Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, reassessment notices could be issued after three years only if the income

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

51. Given Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, reassessment notices could be issued after three years only if the income

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under: “2. Here is a case where Petitioner had filed return of income ITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 showing a total income

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under: “2. Here is a case where Petitioner had filed return of income ITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 showing a total income

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under: “2. Here is a case where Petitioner had filed return of income ITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 showing a total income

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under: “2. Here is a case where Petitioner had filed return of income ITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 showing a total income

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)

51 I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 Mr. Nilesh Bharani amendment to the said effect would have also been made therein. Therefore, the provisions of the section 153C of the Act as those stood in March 2018 were applicable for a reassessment

NIKHIL RASHIKLAL VORA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

51,129/- Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty OneThousand Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty OneThousand Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Fifty OneThousand OneHundred TwentyNine] which is charge OneHundred TwentyNine] which is chargeable to tax has deemed to able to tax has deemed to be an escaped assessment and therefore the provisions of section

ALBERT JOSEPH ROZARIO,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the assessee‟s objections were disposed off as not maintainable and addition made by the AO was held to be good in law. 6. Following the aforesaid directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, vide order dt. 30-12- 2024; wherein

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Reassessment proceedings were well\nwithin the statutory time limit and were not time-barred in view of the first proviso\nto Section 149(1) of the IT Act, which was made applicable from 01/04/2021.\n(vi) That the time limit to re-open the proceedings in the present case within the\nmeaning of Section 147 had been extended to 30/06/2021

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

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

section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. In respect of the FPS, the ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 47/MDS/2016(AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13) dated 17.05.2016 and the ITAT Delhi in the case of Bharat Rasayan