M/S. RAJESHWAR BULLION TRADING ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 23(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act. M/s. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At the outset, we will deal with assessee’s appeal, being ITA No.5754/Mum/2025. In ground nos. 1 & 2, the assessee has challenged the decision of ld. First appellate authority in remanding the issue back to the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) for de novo adjudication. Whereas, in ground

HASU EXPORTERS,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX-17, MUMBAI

In the result, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under section 263 on the issue of LTCG is bad and uncalled for

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehasu Exporters Vs. Pr. Cit-17 Room No. 39, 1St Floor Room No. 120, 1St 94, Kansara Chawl, Floor, Kautilya Kalbadevi Road, Bhavan, C-41 To 43, G Mumbai – 400002. Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfh7119J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

demonetization and pass the assessment order de-novo after due verifications. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall give the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the explanation and supporting evidence submitted by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by order of the Pr.CIT, the assessee has filed an appeal with

INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. VINOD BHANJI SHAH, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

demonetization period, and that the failed to submit any cogent evidence or satisfactory explanation regarding the availability and source of cash in hand? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of reassessment proceedings, without appreciating that

MAHAVIR SAMPATRAJ JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhmahavir Sampatraj Jain Vs. Ito, Ward 20(2)(2) M/S Makker & Co. Piramal Chamber Shop No. 7B Shamji Lalbaug, Morarji Bldg Champsi Mumbai - 400012 Bhimji Road, Mazgaon Mumbai – 400010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpj0382R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Amit Lad Respondent By : Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 13.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

Demonetization. The assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 04.12.2017 and 10.03.2018. However, the assesse has not filed any return of income in response to the notice issued by the assessing officer. Therefore, case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHIMANI WATCH COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in full, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment under sections 147 and 148, and on merits has assailed the sustenance of an addition of ₹19,93,430/- out of the total addition of ₹5,10,64,500/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A. The Assessing Officer had applied an estimate of 20% gross profit on alleged cash sales of ₹99,67,150/- made

KHIMANI WATCH COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in full, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment under sections 147 and 148, and on merits has assailed the sustenance of an addition of ₹19,93,430/- out of the total addition of ₹5,10,64,500/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A. The Assessing Officer had applied an estimate of 20% gross profit on alleged cash sales of ₹99,67,150/- made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. JORSS BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Reassessment limitation effect of Section 149(1)(b) - period\nextended where alleged escaped income exceeds prescribed\nlimit Section 149 does not override provisions of section 147-\nnotice after four years failure to disclose material facts\nnecessary for assessment must exist.\"\n(ii) Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd. V/s. DCIT[2018] 95 taxmann.com\n225 Karnataka. The catch-note is reproduced

JORSS BULLION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Reassessment limitation effect of Section 149(1)(b) - period\nextended where alleged escaped income exceeds prescribed\nlimit Section 149 does not override provisions of section 147-\nnotice after four years failure to disclose material facts\nnecessary for assessment must exist.\"\n(ii) Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd. V/s. DCIT[2018] 95 taxmann.com\n225 Karnataka. The catch-note is reproduced

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

Reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated when the LD AO have reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 6. On the facts and circumstances of case and law the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order under Section u/s 144 r.w.s 147 and r.w.s 144B of income tax Act without providing any cogent material on which

RATAN KASHIRAM SACHDEV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27 (3) (1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer and deterring the Total Income at Rs.17,19,960/-. Assessment Year

ARYAN NAZIM JIVANI (LEAGAL HEIR OF NAZIM NOORDIN JIVANI) PROP.JIVANI WINE MART,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailaryan Nazim Jivani (Legal Heir Of Nazim Noordin Jivani), B-8, Ferreira Mansion, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400016 ............... Appellant Pan: Aacpj1522G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 20(2)(1), Piramal Chamber, Dr. S.S. Rao Marg, ……………… Respondent Parel, Mumbai - 400021

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. In compliance with the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 01.03.2021. Upon perusal of the documents furnished by the assessee in compliance with the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, it was noticed

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

147 of the Act. 3.2 During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for various details, inter alia, party Officer called for various details, inter alia, party- -wise purchases and expenses, details of salary and wages paid to employees, and expenses, details

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

147 of\nthe Act.\n3.2 During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing\nOfficer called for various details, inter alia, party-wise purchases\nand expenses, details of salary and wages paid to employees,\nnumber of employees, labour payments, and particulars relating to\nProvident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation\n(ESIC). However, despite issuance of statutory notices, the assessee

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

147 of\nthe Act.\n3.2 During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing\nOfficer called for various details, inter alia, party-wise purchases\nand expenses, details of salary and wages paid to employees,\nnumber of employees, labour payments, and particulars relating to\nProvident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation\n(ESIC). However, despite issuance of statutory notices, the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed whereas the\nappeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

147 of the Act, and notice under section 148 was issued on\n30.03.2021. The notice was duly served, and in response, the\nassessee filed its return of income on 29.04.2021, reiterating the loss\noriginally declared.\n3. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, the\nAssessing Officer called for and examined the details of the assessee's\npurchases and sales

DCIT, CC - 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MISHAL NICKUNJ SHAH SHRI. L/H. OF LATE NICKUNJ GUNVANTRAI SHAH , MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

147 section 148 section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

DCIT, CC - 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MISHAL NICKUNJ SHAH SHRI. L/H. OF LATE NICKUNJ GUNVANTRAI SHAH , MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

147 section 148 section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

SUPER LABEL MANUFACTURING LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCLE 27(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Super Label Acit Circle 27(3) Manufacturing Llp Room No. 423, 4Th Floor, C- 307, Bhaveshwar Plaza, Vs. Tower No. 6, Off. Lbs Road, Vashi Railway Station, Ghatkopar West, Commercial Complex, Mumbai- 400086 Vashi- 400703, Navi Mumbai. Pan: Adcfs2304Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jayesh Dedia, C.A. Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25 . 04 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 . 04 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062706368 Dated 15/03/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised:

reassessment proceedings in the name of Assessee under different PAN ADCFS2304Q. But the assessee was neither aware of such proceedings nor had received any notice under section 147 or 143(3) or 144 of the Act. The assessee came to know about this when it received a letter dated 19.9.2022 through mail regarding outstanding demand. The assessee immediately approached

VASANT NIVRUTTI ZIMUR,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-17(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Ito, Ward – 17(2)(4) Vasant Nivrutti Zimur, Room No. 112, 1St A 401, Osho Siddharth Floor, Kautilya Osho Dhara Residency, Bhavan, Bkc, Godrej Hill Road, Bandra Khandakpada, Kalyan West 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aagpz4209C (Applicant) (Respondent) Ito, Ward – 28(3)(1) Vs. Vasant Nivrutti Zimur, 316, 3Rd Floor, No.6, A 401, Osho Siddharth Vashi Rlw Stn Complex, Osho Dhara Residency, Vashi, Mumbai - 400703 Godrej Hill Road, Khandakpada, Kalyan West - 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aagpz4209C (Applicant) (Respondent)

u/s 69A of unexplained cheques/ RTGS deposits made in the bank accounts of Rs. 1,37,69,087/-, though such bank accounts are held as operated and controlled by Shri. Atul Bora; 2.0 The Ld. CIT(A), before confirming the addition of cheques/RTGS deposits made in bank accounts of Rs.1,37,69,087/-, ought to have considered the understated vital