SHRI. BISHMIT SINGH CHAWLA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bishmit Singh Chawla Ito Ward 41(4)(1) Coregaon Wine Shop No. Ii Room No. 603 Hanuman Tekdi, Opp. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Western Express Highway Bandra Kurla Goregaon East Complex, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 063. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Afapc7509P Appellant Respondent

section 80C and 80D of chapter VIA of the Act of the Act respectively 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld NFAC/CIT(A) erred in initiating the reassessment

ANILKUMAR A. TIWARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

reassessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the purchase of an immovable property. The core issue revolves around whether the payment for the property was made by the assessee or by a co-owner, Mr. V. Arumugam Pillai.", "held": "The Tribunal found that overwhelming evidence, including receipts, builder

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , KALYAN vs. M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

reassessment proceedings, the AO stated that from A.Y. 2001-02 onward the provisions of section10A of and 10B of the Act have been brought at per with the other section dealing with deductions allowed under chapters VI-A of the Act. From first April 2001 onwards the brought forward losses pertaining to the specified undertaking eligible for deduction

LAXMAN GORE SHRESHTHA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

section 143(3)\nr.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of order dated 21/12/2019.\n2\nITA Nos. 1908 & 1909/Mum/2024\nLaxman Gore Shreshtha\n2.\nIn the outset, both the appeals have same nature of facts and common\nissues, ITA No.1908/Mum/2024 is taken as lead case.\nITA 1908/Mum/2024\n3.\nThe assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-\n\"1.\nThe

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

SUDHIR NAMDEV KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

reassessment without complying with the mandatory provisions 1 Sudhir Namdev Kadam of Section 148A, thereby rendering the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B as bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

Section 282A, even in\nthe absence of a physical or digital signature. Given\nthat the Hon'ble ITAT is bound by the rulingsof its\nown jurisdictional High Court,and in light of the\nprinciple laid down in CIT v. Smt. Godavari devi Saraf\nSupra Note 6, the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad\nHighCourtin Vikas Gupta Supra Note 1 cannot

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post search\nscenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section\n148, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court's findings\nreinforce the departments position that the assessee's\nreliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra\nNote13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal\nis legally unsustainable.\nTherefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the\ndivergence in High Court rulings

LAXMAN GORE SHRESHTHA,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of order dated 21/12/2019. 2. In the outset, both the appeals have same nature of facts and common issues, ITA No.1908/Mum/2024 is taken as lead case. ITA 1908/Mum/2024 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment

SATISH RAJAJI RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 2 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RAJESH M JAIN (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 10(38).  CIT v/s Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court) 6 Rajesh M Jain (HUF) S.10(38)/69: Fact that a small amount invested in "penny" stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is "bogus" if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted.  Farrah Marker v/s ITO (ITAT Mumbai