DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. E I RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

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

69B are applicable. 4) The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced. 5) The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

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

69B are applicable. 4) The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced. 5) The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal

MRS. RENU TIKAMDAS THARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

sections 5(2) rw 8 r.w 9 rw 69, 69A, 69B, as applicable in the case, emanating from the base note. Any other computation will be incorrect. Further, according to appellant there is duplication over years and months within the year. 6. In view of discussion is para 5, the Assessing Officer is directed to assess only such sums, confining

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 have not been challenged on behalf of the Assessee. The appeals before the Tribunal are being pursued by the mother of the Appellant being his legal heir and duly constituted attorney of other ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021

EI RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

reassessment exercise is\nvitiated at inception, and all consequential proceedings are\nrendered nullities in the eye of law.\n\n49. In the result, and in consonance with our detailed\nfindings hereinbefore, we hold that (i) the additions made\nunder Section 69A on account of alleged cash investment in\nKolgaon land stand deleted for want of evidence; (ii) the\nreassessment proceedings

M/S. UNITED INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO. WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

section 148A(1)(a) and 148A(1)(b) of the Act. (4) On the facts and circumstances and in law the impugned reassessment proceeding is bad-in-law.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a partnership firm and had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of assessee. such a scenariono addition is warranted

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of assessee. such a scenariono addition is warranted

MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of assessee. such a scenariono addition is warranted

MISHRA GANESHA RAM ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of asse such a scenariono addition is warranted

MANOJ KUMAR CHANDRAMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. Manoj Kumar Chandrama Prasad Pande ITA no.191/Mum./2023 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the AO relied on the statement recorded of the builder, however, no opportunity

CHAITALEE SACHIN DEOKAR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-IT -2, MUMBAI

reassessment was based on an 'incriminating document' which the CIT did not properly investigate or link to the assessee with corroborative evidence. The AO had taken a plausible view, and the CIT's attempt to substitute his judgment was not permissible under Section 263.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["263", "143(3)", "147", "69", "69B

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE,THANE vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20 without appreciating that the same were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer and is contrary to the provisions of section 151A of the Act. 3. The ld.AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs. 62,00,000 only on the basis of an alleged excel sheet

AMIT SHANTARAM BAGADE MITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAXATION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20 without appreciating that the same were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer and is contrary to the provisions of section 151A of the Act. 3. The ld.AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs. 62,00,000 only on the basis of an alleged excel sheet

JAYANTILAL JESARAM PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

reassessment\nproceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in\nthe pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a\nscenario no addition is warranted in the case of assessee.\nReliance in this regard has been placed on the decision in case\nof Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018\n(Assessment Year : 2007–08) wherein the Coordinate Bench

THIRUVENGADATHAN PAKSHI RAJAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": ["148", "69B", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds (delay) without considering the merits, and whether the reassessment

JESARAM PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

reassessment\nproceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in\nthe pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a\n\nscenario no addition is warranted in the case of assessee.\nReliance in this regard has been placed on the decision in case\nof Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018\n(Assessment Year : 2007-08) wherein the Coordinate

UMMESALMA HUZEFA GHADIALI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

reassessment\nproceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in\nthe pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a\nscenario no addition is warranted in the case of assessee.\nReliance in this regard has been placed on the decision in case\nof Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018\n(Assessment Year : 2007–08) wherein the Coordinate Bench