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

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

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

section 80D is admissible, in the course of the original assessment proceedings. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, assessee cannot be faulted for not furnishing all the necessary material information. It was contended that in any case this reopening is based on a revenue audit objection but then the revenue audit objection is on point

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

reassessment. This, we find to be the unequivocal view expressed by the Hon’ble Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra) and Murli Agro Products Ltd. (supra), judicially binding on us, and which we further find as consistent with the (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT decisions in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

reassessment. This, we find to be the unequivocal view expressed by the Hon’ble Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra) and Murli Agro Products Ltd. (supra), judicially binding on us, and which we further find as consistent with the (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT decisions in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra

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

GIRIRAJ KISHAN SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act were not fulfilled. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Jaw, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer was without considering the setoff of loss under the head 'Income from House property