RAJEEV BRIJBHUSHAN BHATNAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rajeev Brijbhushan Bhatnagar, Ito-28(2)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Chartered Accountants 16Th Floor, Commercial Complex, Vashi, D Wing, Trade World Tower, Navi Mumbai-400703. Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Acfpb 2967 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 20.12.2017, the assessee order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 20.12.2017 order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 20.12.2017 preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee also preferred preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee al preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee al appeal against

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

section 250\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment\nyears 2011-12 and 2013-14.\n2. Since both appeals pertain to the same assessee and involve similar\nissues that arise out of a similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were\nheard together

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

section 250\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment\nyears 2011-12 and 2013-14.\n2. Since both appeals pertain to the same assessee and involve similar\nissues that arise out of a similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were\nheard together

DCIT, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. GHANSHYAM RASIKLAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2012-13, date of order 18/07/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 33(1), Mumbai (in short, the Ld. AO) passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, date of order 18/12/2019

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

147. This argument is devoid of merit. The concept of "full and true disclosure" presupposes the genuineness concept of "full and true disclosure" presupposes the genuineness concept of "full and true disclosure" presupposes the genuineness of the transaction disclosed. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing ansaction disclosed. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing ansaction disclosed. In the reasons recorded

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order holding that the Assessing Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction in accordance with law. ―The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‗Ld. Commissioner)‘} u/s 250 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‗the Act‘). 5 ITA No.6197-6203/Mum/2024 Kashyap

ITO 8(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SENTIA DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

250 CTR 116 (Bom.) Monitor India(P) Ltd v. UOI ( 2012) 68 DTR 313 (Bom) • Monitor India(P) Ltd v. UOI ( 2012) 68 DTR 313 (Bom) • HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TMF HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

250 of the Act quashing the impugned proceedings under section 147 of the Act on account of change of opinion be upheld. Submission in reply to the learned departmental representative's observations on merits of the case. 23. At the outset, it is submitted that the Respondent has elaborately discussed the merits of the case in its brief synopsis submitted

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 10(34) of the Act.\n15.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n16.\nThe AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–48, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub- section (3). (5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order under section 92CA and forwards such order to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub- section (3). (5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order under section 92CA and forwards such order to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer