DEVANAND AMARNATH PARKAR,JOGESHWARI EAST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(4)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC, BANDRA EAST

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the\ntime limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years\nfrom the end of the relevant assessment year, and (iv) all notices issued invoking the\ntime limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income

BHUSHAN VASANT PARELKAR,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 being bad in law. Since, the issue involved is legal and the facts relating thereto are already on record, we find it appropriate to first adjudicate on the same. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee did not file his original return of income for the year under consideration. Subsequently, on receipt

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income

NARESH AMRATLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-27(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

u/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2015 issued on 28/07/2022 which is admittedly barred by issued on 28/07/2022 which is admittedly barred by issued on 28/07/2022 which is admittedly barred by limitation under the ne limitation under the new provision of Section 149(1) w provision of Section 149(1) and it is not covered under TOLA. Accordingly

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

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

u/s 144C(1) r.w.s 147 158-169\nwas passed proposing addition of\nRs.28,50,30,661/- while computing income\nunder the normal provisions under the head\n\"Income from other source\".\n19. 28th June 2023\nAppellant filed submission dated 28th 170-174\nJune 2023 requesting for no addition of Rs.\n\n10\nITA Nos.3674/Mum/2025 and ors.\nShapoorji Pallonji Mistry\nAYs

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

u/s. 3 (1) of TOLA included (a) the power to assess or 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

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

u/s 144C(1) r.w.s 147 158-169\nwas passed proposing addition of\nRs.28,50,30,661/- while computing income\nunder the normal provisions under the head\n\"Income from other source\".\n19. 28th June 2023\nAppellant filed submission dated 28th 170-174\nJune 2023 requesting for no addition of Rs.\n\n10\nITA Nos.3674/Mum/2025 and ors.\nShapoorji Pallonji Mistry\nAYs

PRAFUL ARJUN RANE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income

KETUKUMAR KRISHNAVADAN PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

147 to 151 are machinery provisions. Therefore, they must be given an interpretation that is consistent with the object and purpose of the Income Tax Act. ………………. "75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assesse because it specifies a higher level of authority

KETUKUMAR KRISHNAVADAN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

147 to 151 are machinery provisions. Therefore, they must be given an interpretation that is consistent with the object and purpose of the Income Tax Act. ………………. "75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assesse because it specifies a higher level of authority

ELSIE HUBALD,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

u/s 69 of the act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in rejecting the objections raised against the proposed addition of Rs.43,67,491/- and the learned A.O. erred in making addition of an amount of Rs.43,67,491/- as unexplained investment u/s69

MOHAMEDALI SHABANALI BADAMI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

147 of the Act. Subsequently, ld. Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 148A(d), dated 19.04.2022, wherein it was noted that information was flagged in accordance with Risk Management Strategy (RMS) which constituted information with the ld. Assessing Officer suggesting that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the purpose of section 148 and section 148A. No reply

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

149(1)(b) in the absence of any income escaped assessment represented in the form of "asset" 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated March 17, 2023 issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the Ld. AO is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI vs. RAMCHAND THAKURDAS JHAMTANI, THANE

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in the departmental appeal in relation to the relief granted by the CIT(A) on merits are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings culminated into passing of the Assessment Order, dated 29/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the aforesaid Assessment Order was allowed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 16/05/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal ITA No. 3552/Mum/2024

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

149(1)(b) in the absence of any income escaped assessment represented in the form of "asset" 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated March 17, 2023 issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the Ld. AO is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

149(1)(b) in the absence of any income escaped assessment represented in the form of "asset" 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated March 17, 2023 issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the Ld. AO is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under 153, in the case of a person where a search

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under 153, in the case of a person where a search