SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

148A(b) of the Act and also after initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of after initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of after initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The Appellant further submi the Act. The Appellant further submits that the dropping of the ts that the dropping of the proceedings

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment u/s 148 for the AY 2017-18 to bring to tax 18 to bring to tax alleged wrongful deduction u/s 80G of Rs. 4,86,48,800/ alleged wrongful deduction u/s 80G of Rs. 4,86,48,800/ alleged wrongful deduction u/s 80G of Rs. 4,86,48,800/- claimed by the Appellant Company since the said donations were

SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Him.

reassessment proceedings contending that the approval/sanction obtained under Section 151 of the Act was not valid. In this regard, primary contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that in the present case for Assessment Year 2017-2018, the notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d) have been issued on 21/07/2022, which is beyond the period

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

147 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is further illegal and not tenable under law as said reassessment proceedings were initiated alleging escapement of income on account of fictitious profits/ losses from penny stock transactions and in present order passed u/s 263 it has been alleged that source of purchase and sale of transactions remained

ALBERT JOSEPH ROZARIO,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice, along with a copy of the order passed, if required, under clause (d) of section 148A, requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in such notice, a return of his income

ACIT, CIRCLE 24(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NILKAMAL CRATES & CONTAINERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

reassessment proceedings have been continued under new provisions only. Hence the AO has issued notice u/s 148A(b) and also passed order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. The provisions of section 148A(d) of the Act would require the AO to pass order on the question, viz., whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice

GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

reassessment initiated u/s. 148A(b) 148A(d) & 148 and consequentially re-assessment done u/s. 147 rws 144 be declared null and void. 3. Without prejudice to other contentions/grounds the notice issued u/s. 148 is invalid. The notice ought to have been issued under section

DEEPAK MAHADEO BHOIR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardeepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Income Tax Officer, C/O Bharat Kumar, 317, Ward 42(1)(2), Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Before We Proceed To Decide The Substantive Issue Arising For Consideration, It Is Necessary To Provide A Brief Factual Background. This Appeal Was Earlier Disposed Of By The Coordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 12.12.2024. Subsequently, Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification/Recall Of The Appellate Order On The Ground That While Deciding The Appeal, The Bench Had Failed To Decide Ground No. 2.A & 2.B. While Deciding The Miscellaneous Application, The Bench Having Found Merit In The Submissions Of Assessee, Recalled The Order For The Limited Purpose Of Deciding Ground No. 2.A & 2.B Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal. This Is How The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before Us.

Section 142(1) and the show cause notice on the above ground. The other contentions raised by the Petitioner are kept open. 16. If the timeline of reassessment proceedings in assessee’s case is kept in juxtaposition to the facts involved in case of Gurpreet Singh vs. DCIT (supra) and Hitesh Ramniklal Shah (supra), it can be seen that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassess under unamended section 147, (b) issuance of notice under unamended section 148, (c) in accordance with time limit in terms of unamended section 149 and (d) sanction under unamended section 151 of the Act. 3 ITA Nos. 3674/Mum/2025 and ors. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 5. Whether section 3(1) of TOLA creates a legal

ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN , BKC, MUMBAI vs. ARVIND VELJI GADA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice u/s of the new regime of the new regime 3. Thus, in this Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for The time limit for issuance of The time limit for issuance of issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the new issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the new a notice u/s

ARVIND VELJI GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment notice u/s of the new regime of the new regime 3. Thus, in this Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for The time limit for issuance of The time limit for issuance of issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the new issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the new a notice u/s

CYRUS PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 151A of the Act empowers the Central Government to make a scheme by notification for the purpose of assessment, reassessment or recomputation u/s. 147 or issuance of notice u/s. 148 or conducting of enquiries or issuance of notice u/s. 148A

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(2)(1),MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG vs. HOMEWELL REALTY LLP, ANDHERI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

147 of the Act becomes void-ab-initio and therefore,\nassessment in this case is hereby annulled as notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) of\nthe Act are invalid in the eyes of law as AO lacks jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148\nwithout the approval of specified authority. Thus, Additional Ground No. 1 of the appeal

DEVANSHI SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardevanshi Sharma Ito, Ward 34(1)(1) 216, 2Nd Floor, Kautaliya Bhawan, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No. 18, Vs. 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Cmvpk 6007 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.10.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Legal Issue, Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) As Also The Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act. Since, The Aforesaid Issue Raised By The Assessee Is A Purely Legal & Jurisdictional Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter & Affecting The Validity Of The Proceedings Initiated U/S. 147 Of The Act, We Are Inclined To Address The Issue At The Very Outset.

u/s. 147 of the Act. In case of Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), while dealing with identical nature of dispute has held as under: “7. In these facts, the limited point to be examined is whether the order dated 18/08/2022 passed under section 148A(d) and the notice dated 23.08.2022 issued under

ACIT - 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RISHABH DIAMOND PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross\nObjection by the assessee is partly allowed

147 would give\narbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the\nbasis of \"mere change of opinion\", which cannot be per se reason to\nreopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between\npower to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no\npower to review; he has the power to reassess

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RISHABH AVNISH MODY, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

148A(d) of the Act and also the notice u/s. 148 of the Act were passed/issued after the expiry of 3 years from the end of the assessment year under dispute. Drawing our attention to Section 151(ii) of the Act, it has submitted, after expiry of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the competent authority

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

147\n15. In terms of the decisions in Ashish Agrawal and Rajeev Bansal (supra), the following\nposition emerges in the context of the present case :-\n(i) The period for subject reassessment in terms of Section 149 of the old regime is\ndeemed to be extended till 30/06/2021 under the TOLA.\n(ii) The notice dated 29/06/2021 would be deemed

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

148A(d) dated 28.07.2022, notice under section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022.\n4. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee filed its return of income on 18.08.2021, declaring income as originally returned. During the course of reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued