ACIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MS JAYANTI K PUNJABI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11

u/s 147 is bad in law – as attached – Rs.76,64,384/-” 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : on the basis of search and seizure operation carried out in the case of M/s. Ahuja Group and their associates in which pen drive and other incriminating material were found with the driver of Mr. Jagdish

DCIT 14.1.1, MUMBAI vs. AADI INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) R.W.S263 U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

13A of the Paper Book to submit that notice was issued for the reason that Assessing Officer failed to disallow the sales expenses which is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He submitted that the issues raised in notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act are different than the issue raised in the revision proceedings

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

VIPINLUMAR SANKLECHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16 (3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6612/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Vipinkumar Sanklecha बिधम/ Ito, Ward-16(3)(5) Room No. 447, 4Th Floor, A/303, Bhattad Tower, Opp. Vs. Kora Kendra Ground, R. M. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bhattad Road, Borivali (W), Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aayps5062N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Mumbai Dated 02.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Which Are The Legal Issues Raised By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents As Laid Down U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) As Well As For Not Following The Hon’Ble Supreme Court As Well The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Decision Cited By Him. The Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3.1 Reads As Under: - “1. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Reopening Of Assessment Without Appreciating That The Reopening Of The Assessment Is Bad In Law, Invalid & Liable To Be Quashed In As Much As:

section 68 of the Act, being the sale proceeds of such transaction, treating the same as unexplained income. The reasons given are wrong, contrary to facts of the case and against the provision of law.” 3. Assailing the action of AO to have re-opened the assessment without satisfying the condition precedent, the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Ajay

HENRIETTA MARIA PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1914/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2002-2003) Henrietta Maria Pereira, B/602, Vintage Chs Ltd, Ic Colony, Borivali (West),Mumbai – 400 103 Pan: Akupp5344E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -17(1), Room No.117/135, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri H.M.Bhatt सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

reassessment order for which case of the assessee was reopened. He referred to the reasons recorded for reopening at page 33 of the paper book. He pointed that a perusal of the reasons for reopening would show that the assessment for assessment year 2002-03 was reopened on two counts: (i) HRA claimed by the assessee is not admissible

AADI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT -14, MUMBAI

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

13A of the Paper Book to submit that notice was issued for the reason that Assessing Officer failed to disallow the sales expenses which is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He submitted that the issues raised in notice issued u/s.263 of the Act are different than the issue raised in the revision proceedings