ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI vs. FA CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

reassessment proceedings\nbased on information regarding high-value cash withdrawals\nreceived via the INSIGHT Portal. The assessment was completed\nex-parte under Section 144, treating the cash withdrawals as\nunexplained money under Section 69A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI vs. F A CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

reassessment proceedings\nbased on information regarding high-value cash withdrawals\nreceived via the INSIGHT Portal. The assessment was completed\nex-parte under Section 144, treating the cash withdrawals as\nunexplained money under Section 69A

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

section 69A on account of alleged unexplained money stand deleted for want of evidence; (ii) the reassessment proceedings initiated under

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

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

reassessment exercise is vitiated at inception, and all consequential proceedings are rendered nullities in the eye of law. The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 49. In the result, and in consonance with our detailed findings hereinbefore, we hold that (i) the additions made under the head ―Capital Gains‖ on account of alleged NOC receipts and under section 69A

ITO 3(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ART DECO MUMBAI PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

section 69A of the act by the learned assessing officer with reasons. ART DECO Mumbai Private Limited; A.Ys. 15-16, 16-17 No infirmity is pointed out in the order of the first appellate authority.Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in upholding the order of the learned first appellate authority. Accordingly, we do not find any merit

ITO 3(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ART DECO MUMBAI PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

section 69A of the act by the learned assessing officer with reasons. ART DECO Mumbai Private Limited; A.Ys. 15-16, 16-17 No infirmity is pointed out in the order of the first appellate authority.Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in upholding the order of the learned first appellate authority. Accordingly, we do not find any merit

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings under section 147 by making additions of Rs. additions of Rs. 2,27,46.240/- while the approval note under section 151 e the approval note under section 151 was obtained for income escaping assessment of Rs. 1,00,000/ was obtained for income escaping assessment of Rs. 1,00,000/ was obtained for income escaping assessment

TANISHQ BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CC 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The appeals are cross in nature, founded upon the same appellate order and the same evidentiary base, albeit assailing the same in different directions; accordingly, they are taken up together and are being dealt with by this consolidated order. 2. The sole

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TANISHQ BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The appeals are cross in nature, founded upon the same appellate order and the same evidentiary base, albeit assailing the same in different directions; accordingly, they are taken up together and are being dealt with by this consolidated order. 2. The sole

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

reassessment order, the Assessing Officer did not make the addition under section 69A but instead proceeded to invoke section 68 and treated

DE vs. HARDA DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAIVS.ITO 9(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA no.7286/Mum

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax, 1961, Act [Act] (2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ICIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition Rs.3,20,175/- under Section 69A

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). Such tax rate of 60% will be further increased by 25% surcharge, 6% penalty, i.e., the final tax rate comes out to be 83.25% (including cess). Provided that such 6% penalty shall not be levied when the income under Section

GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

reassessment notice is time barred and consequently the assessment made is also invalid and be declared null and void. 5.2 The sanction under Section 151 is not by proper authorities. The Assessment is invalid. 6. The Assessing Officer has made additions under section 69A

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

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

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

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

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