ACIT-15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURYA FERROUS ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

151A of the Act. Thus, Notice u/s 148 dated 26/07/2022 is bad in law. 3. The respondent craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the date of the hearing”. 4. Since the grounds raised in cross-objection go to the root of the matter, we would first take

PARSHWA INVESTMENT ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Parshwa Investment Deputy Commissioner Of B-602, Klassic Gold Hotel, Off Cg Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1) Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Vs. Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Gujrat- 380009 Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, M.K.Road, Mumbai, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aatfp 4387 Q Appellant Respondent

151A of the Act as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technlogies Limited vs. ACIT [WP No. 1778/2023; order dated 03.05.2024]. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing the sanction note of the Learned

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

147 read with section 144B was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of enquiry. Accordingly, notices under section 263 were issued on 04.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. 7. In response to the notices under section 263, the assessee filed detailed written submissions dated 21.01.2025.The assessee submitted that during the original assessment proceedings completed under section

MARK FOODS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 instead of issuing notice under section 153C of the Act. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction merely relying on the basis of alleged information received without

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KALPANA MADHANI SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit-14(1)(1) M/S. Kalpana Madhani R. No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Securities Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 11/1102, Shanti Tower, Shanti Mumbai-400 020 Path, Near Garodia Nagar, Mumbai-400 077 Pan: Aabck2968H

151A of the Act. Thus, Notice u/s 148 dated 28/07/2022 is bad in law. 3. The Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening of Assessment second time "due to change of opinion without appreciating that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 was already completed on 29.03.2016 and thereafter the case was reopened u/s. 147 and assessment

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, and the order of CIT (Appeal)/NFAC is not correct as per procedure in confirming the same, hence the same is requested to be set aside. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or modify any or all the above grounds of appeal as and when advised

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)

147 rws 144 read with section 144B be cancelled. 2. The reassessment notice under section 148A(b) issued on 27/5/2022 by jurisdictional DY CIT Circle 1(2) Mumbai AO 1(2)(1) Mumbai and notice under section 148A (d) and notice under section 148 are issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer circle 1(2)(1) Mumbai (i.e. DY CIT Circle

HETAL PAGARE, ACIT 16(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HASMUKH KABABHAI RAVAT, MULUND WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 Pan: Aabpr2061D (Appellant) (Respondent)

147. r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the act is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the income tax act is initiated for non response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the act. Computation of income and demand notice u/s

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JASVINDER KALYAN SALUJA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

151A of the Act Thirdly, the Ld. counsel submitted that in regular assessment , the Ld. counsel submitted that in regular assessment , the Ld. counsel submitted that in regular assessment proceedings completed on 29.03.2016 proceedings completed on 29.03.2016, all the issues in respect to all the issues in respect to the advance received were duly explained and therefore, reopening the advance

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)

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 of the Act in a faceless manner.The Central government has issued a notification under the said section vide Notification

GOVIND MANSHARAM DINGWA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

1)(b) is invalid. 3. Validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act: - i. Your Honour may note that Ld. JAO has issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 in the present case. Your Honour's attention is invited to Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Hon'ble CBDT under the powers conferred under section

GOVIND MANSHARAM DINGWA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

1)(b) is invalid. 3. Validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act: - i. Your Honour may note that Ld. JAO has issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 in the present case. Your Honour's attention is invited to Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Hon'ble CBDT under the powers conferred under section

SATISH HARNAMDAS SETHI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

151A of the Act mandates that the notice under section 148 can only be issued by the faceless Assessing Officer and not by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act. The Appellant, humbly, prays that the notice issued under section