CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

144A; (ii) an order made by the [Joint] Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Commissioner

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

u/s. 234B from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2014 i.e. period starting from first day of the relevant AY.to the end of the month in which reassessment order was passed. We find that levy of interest u/s.234B in case of reassessment or re-computation is governed by provisions of sub section 3 of section 234B of the Act.However,the AO has invoked

ASST CIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. NEETISH R. DOSHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Neetish R Doshi Income Tax-4(3)(2), 17, Gr. Floor, Sumernagar Room No.649 Building, No.01, Near Kora Aayakar Bhavan Kendra Kendra Flyover, M.K.Road, New Marine Lines S.V.Road, Borivali West Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan/Gir No. Appellant) .. Respondent)

u/s. section 144A, which were found false and the finding was recorded that there was no truth in the allegations against the assessee that he had acquired huge assets out of the income from undisclosed sources. So far as the High Court was concerned, it is a certain of the Constitution find its jurisdiction cannot be made dependent upon

VINAY ARUN JOSHI,THANE vs. PCIT CENTRAL MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144A;\n(II) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in\nthe performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or\nassigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the\nChief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the\nBoard in this behalf under section

ITO 10 (1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAILASHNATH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

147 for verification of high rate of share premium and cash received. As per directions of CCIT same is required to be examined. ITA. No. 6451/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Issue notice u/s 148 as per I.T. Act, 1961.” xx xx As discussed in the earlier para, the remand report from the AO has been received on 20.12.2017, which

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL - 1, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reassessment u/s. 147 and therefore, reliance on this case is misplaced. 4. GOYAL IRON & STEEL WORKS (INDIA)Vs. CIT (ITAT Agra Bench)IT(SS) NOS.5 TO 7(AGRA) OF 2000 dt. 28.09.2001- pp 28 of PB. This decision pertains to whether order passed by AU u/s. 158BC and 158BD on basis of direction issued by Addl. CIT u/s. 144A could

MR. ABHIJEET SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-16(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleabhijeet Soni V. Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(1) Room No. 441 C/O- M/S. Jayesh Sangharajka & Co.Llp 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre Aayakar Bhavan Ds Phalke Road Mumbai - 400020 Dadar (E), Mumbai - 400014 Pan: Aadps8454R (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A before Ld. Jt CIT range 16(2), requesting him to pass direction on whether Ld. AO had material leading to reasons to believe that income has escaped the assessment for making reassessment, whether other provisions of Chapter XIV were complied, directing Ld. AO to provide copy of material on the basis of which assessment is made. f. Ld. JCIT

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

147 CTR (SC) 474 : (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC) CIT vs Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. Following is an extract from the decision. "5. The main contention of the assessee which was considered by the Tribunal was whether or not the order of the ITO regarding the said three items in respect of which the assessee had no occasion to prefer

M/S. BHARTI LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(2) (1) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment proceedings are invalid, without jurisdiction, has no legs to stand and hence must be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) M/s Bharati Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 14-15 has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. Cit, 501, 5Th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration Is Whether The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, Can Be Subjected To Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act. For Deciding This Issue, Few Necessary Facts Are Required To Be Considered. The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Providing Information Technology (It)/Information Technology Enabled Service (Ites) To Its Group Companies As Well As Consulting Services To Its Clients. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed

147 of the Act even empowers ld. DRP to enhance the valuation on issues which the assessee may or may not have raised. Once ld. DRP issues a direction for the guidance of the A.O. to pass the final assessment order, in terms with sub-section 13 of section 144C, the A.O. has to pass the final assessment order

BIRLA CARBON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

147 of the Act even empowers ld. DRP to enhance the valuation on issues which the assessee may or may not have raised. Once ld. DRP issues a direction for the guidance of the A.O. to pass the final assessment order, in terms with sub-section 13 of section 144C, the A.O. has to pass the final assessment order

SPEEDKING COURIER SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Speedking Courier Income Tax Officer- Services Pvt. Ltd. 4(3)(3), 25/27, Old Hanuman Galli, Room No. 648, Vs. 1St Cross Lane, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 002. Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaics3715M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) Sr., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. The Appellant Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Income Tax Officer- 4(3)(3) Mumbai By Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Addition Of Rs.1,53,00,000/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not Justified. 1. The Ld Cit(A) Is Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- Made By The Ld. A.O. Under Section 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Basic Condition To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 68 Are Not Satisfied In The Present Case. Hence, The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Act Is Not In Accordance With The Law & The Same May Be Deleted.

144A by Ld. Additional commissioner of Income-tax range 4(3) Mumbai and came to the finding that the assessee company has not returned the money back to M/s. Averina International Resorts Pvt. Ltd. on the same day i.e. 24/11/2011 and in fact, the amount, in question, was refunded in Mr. Francis Xavier Furtado's bank account

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. (iii)Shanti Exim Ltd Vs CIT [20171 88 taxmann.com 361 (Ahd. Tribunal) The Commissioner set aside assessment order in exercise of his power under section 263 on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make any independent verification to establish the genuineness

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

147 TT] 649) (Kol) - In this case, the assessee advanced secured loans as interest free funds to subsidiary, which was used by it for purpose of business i.e. hospitality business / construction of hotels. The interest on secured loan was denied by AO. The Tribunal, while relying on S. A. Builders Ltd (supra), held that once commercial expediency is established, interest

PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

reassessment made under section 147, or (b) after the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. . . . 9. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

144A; 8 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Commissioner

BOMBAY TYRES,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Bombay Tyres Vs Income-Tax Officer, 23, Arenja Corner, -15(1)(1), Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400703 [Pan: Aagcb1604E] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar & Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocates Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057354062(1), Dated 26.10.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.06.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144A Dated 28Th June, 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

144A dated 28th June, 2019 passed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the merits of the case. 2 Bombay Tyres AY 2017-18 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has erred in confirming the additions in respect of PAN AAGCB1604E which pertains to a non-existent entity. Therefore, any proceedings

MRS SUNITA SHYAM MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was completed merely on the basis of change of opinion. In view of the above, the said order passed should be squashed as the reopening of the assessment is not justified and bad in law. and necessary direction should be given in this regard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case