ACIT 41 2 1, MUMBAI vs. DINESH JYOTICHAND JAIN, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

292B of the Act as the notice issued and the assessment made were Act as the notice issued and the assessment made were Act as the notice issued and the assessment made were in conformity with OR according to the inte in conformity with OR according to the intent & purpose nt & purpose

M/S. GYANSHANKAR INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P. LTD.(BEFORE AMALGAMATION M/S. STELLAR CREDIT& E-TRADING P. LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-7(1)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 147 of the Act on 19.11.2019 and also on 06.12.2019. In the submission dated 06.12.2019, the assessee specifically stated in the subject that this letter is filed as objection against the reopening of assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act in continuation of earlier objection dated 19.11.2019 and in para 1 it has been specifically stated that

ACIT-16(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. FAKHRUDDIN TAIYEBALI PADARIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit- 16(2), Mumbai Fakhruddin Taiyebali Padaria 5Th Floor, Shabbir Place, 80 Vs. Dr. A.L. Nair Road, Mumbai- 400008. Pan: Abdpp 7103 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025

reassessment. 6.8 Since a notice issued under section 148 of the Act against the deceased assessee is invalid, therefore, it cannot be said that the notice issued against the deceased assessee by the AO in the present case is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act and hence, the provisions of section 292B

VASHDEV G ADNANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vashdev G Adnani, Acit 19(1) G-4, Sea Crest, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. Seven Bunglows Gardens, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 061. Pan Abapa7414M (Appellant) (Respondent)

292B are not applicable. In the cross objections the AO wants us to treat us the assessment completed u/s.148 as assessment finalised u/s.153A of the Act. In our opinion, both the sections deal with different situations and notice issued under one section cannot be treated notice under another section nor can be assessment made under a particular section

M/S. PANTIME FINANCE CO. P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 148 of the Act. No other evidence was produced as to substantiate that matter was ever discussed between the Assessing Officer or Addl. CIT and the Learned Pr.CIT for arriving at satisfaction of Learned Pr.CIT on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Even no evidences whether Ld PCIT examined the material relied upon

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 0.5% instead of addition made by the AO at 1% of the circular transaction without appreciating that the estimate made by the AO is very reasonable." 4 The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and /or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need

D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

reassessment would be six AYs preceding the year of search. It was therefore held by the Hon’ble High Court that, the position of law expounded in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd (supra) would indeed apply to all search’s u/s 132 of the Act, conducted prior to 01.-04.2017 [In the present case search took place

ACIT CC -7(1) , MUMBAI vs. DR. D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

reassessment would be six AYs preceding the year of search. It was therefore held by the Hon’ble High Court that, the position of law expounded in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd (supra) would indeed apply to all search’s u/s 132 of the Act, conducted prior to 01.-04.2017 [In the present case search took place

ACIT CENT. CIR -7(1) , MUMBAI vs. DR. D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

reassessment would be six AYs preceding the year of search. It was therefore held by the Hon’ble High Court that, the position of law expounded in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd (supra) would indeed apply to all search’s u/s 132 of the Act, conducted prior to 01.-04.2017 [In the present case search took place

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

147 of the Act, the Assessing officer shall is issue came up before the Hon’ble serve notice on the assessee serve notice on the assessee. This issue came up before the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Supreme Court in the case

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

147 of the Act, the Assessing officer shall is issue came up before the Hon’ble serve notice on the assessee serve notice on the assessee. This issue came up before the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Supreme Court in the case

M/S. SUKANIYA PROPERTIES, PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the\nrevenue is dismissed

292B of the\nAct to sustain a notice from being declared invalid merely on the ground of mistake\nin the notice. However, the issue here is not with regard to the mistake / error\ncommitted by the Assessing Officer while taking a sanction from the Joint\nCommissioner of Income Tax but whether there was due application of mind by the\nJoint

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AYAKAR BHAVAN vs. SUKANIYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the\nrevenue is dismissed

292B of the\nAct to sustain a notice from being declared invalid merely on the ground of mistake\nin the notice. However, the issue here is not with regard to the mistake / error\ncommitted by the Assessing Officer while taking a sanction from the Joint\nCommissioner of Income Tax but whether there was due application of mind by the\nJoint

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

section 292B of the Act,he stated that even if two orders were to be passed, the mistake was covered by the said section.With regard to interest charged u/s.220(2),he stated that refund for the AY. 2011-12 was adjusted in time,that the assessee was getting interest u/s. 244A,that the charging of interest was justified. With regard

GAUTAM ENTERPRISES,THANE vs. PR. CIT -1, THANE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Gautam Enterprises Tax-1, Office No. 1B, 1St Floor, ‘B’ Wing, 6Th Floor, Shiv Krupa Chs Ltd, Ashar It Park Road 16Z, Vs. Charai, Thane, Wagle Ind Estate, Mumbai-400 601 Thane 400 604 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabfg0439L Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022

147 vide issue of notice u/s 148 dated 27/3/2018 are hereby dropped.” 013. The principal Commissioner of income tax has been bestowed upon with a power under section 263 of the Act that he may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this act. On such examination, if he considers that any ‘order’ passed in those proceedings

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 0.5% instead of addition made by the AO at 1% of the circular transaction without appreciating that the estimate made by the AO is very Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 reasonable." 4 The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and /or to alter any of the ground

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 0.5% instead of addition made by the AO at 1% of the circular transaction without appreciating that the estimate made by the AO is very Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 reasonable." 4 The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and /or to alter any of the ground

DCIT CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 0.5% instead of addition made by the AO at 1% of the circular transaction without appreciating that the estimate made by the AO is very Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 reasonable." 4 The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and /or to alter any of the ground

SUREAKSHA DB REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 30(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

292B. It appears that the said decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court was not brought to the notice of honourable tribunal at the time of arguing the case of luxury goods retail private limited which is directly on this point and by a superior authority. 27, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the issues