SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(1) , MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment under section 147 of the Act with\nregard to the surviving disallowance under 36(1)(va) towards delayed remittance of\nPF/ESI when the main reason for which the AO reopened i.e. disallowance under\nsection 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments for alternate\naccommodation, is deleted by the CIT(A).\nITA No. 1442/Mum/2025-

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment under section 147 of the Act with regard to the surviving disallowance under 36(1)(va) towards delayed remittance of PF/ESI when the main reason for which the AO reopened i.e. disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments for alternate accommodation, is deleted by the CIT(A). ITA No. 1442/Mum/2025-

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the disallowance made under section\n36(1)(va) of the Act for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 also.\n15. In result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 to AY 2020...

reassessment under section 147 of the Act with\nregard to the surviving disallowance under 36(1)(va) towards delayed remittance of\nPF/ESI when the main reason for which the AO reopened i.e. disallowance under\nsection 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments for alternate\naccommodation, is deleted by the CIT(A).\nITA No. 1442/Mum/2025-

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

36 filed by the assessee on 21/06/2021 are reproduced as under: 9. The issue of notice u/s. 148 invalid for various reasons. 10. The appellant reserves the right to add amend or alter any or all grounds of appeal Section 264A. 11. The Assessing Officer has erred in adding Rs.26,35,198/- as interest income. 12. The Assessment Order

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

36 filed by the assessee on 21/06/2021 are reproduced as under: 9. The issue of notice u/s. 148 invalid for various reasons. 10. The appellant reserves the right to add amend or alter any or all grounds of appeal Section 264A. 11. The Assessing Officer has erred in adding Rs.26,35,198/- as interest income. 12. The Assessment Order

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

va). This has been dealt in para 15 of the assessment order. In the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that in the return of income, the assessee had disclosed long term capital gains of Rs.17,77,77,777/from the shares of Viraj Profiles against which the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.54F for a sum of Rs.11

DCIT-CC.3(3), CENTRAL RANGE-3 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD. , MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Oricon Enterprises Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Cc-3(3),Mumbai Vs. 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400 020

36(1)(va) of Rs.2,84,472/- by the CIT(A). On the other hand, the revenue is aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), for the reason, viz. (i). that he had erred in law and the facts of the case in directing that the disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) be restricted qua the fresh

M/S. ORICON ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CC-3(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Oricon Enterprises Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Cc-3(3),Mumbai Vs. 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400 020

36(1)(va) of Rs.2,84,472/- by the CIT(A). On the other hand, the revenue is aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), for the reason, viz. (i). that he had erred in law and the facts of the case in directing that the disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) be restricted qua the fresh

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

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

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

ZENITH DYEINTERMEDIATES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-3,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

36(1)(va)\" that the assessee\nhas paid Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund. As per provision of\nIncome Tax Act, any sum received by the assessee from its employees as contribution\nto any such employees, is income in the hands of the assessee as per section 2(24)(x)\nof the I.T. Act and the same is allowable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SODEXO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

reassessment proceedings mainly on the ground that there was a “full and true disclosure” on the part of the assessee and the AO has reopened the assessment merely on the basis of change of opinion. But the facts of the present case, we find that in case of the slump sale u/s 50B(3) of the Act, it is prescribed

I G INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

section 234B of Rs.3,16,033/-. The assessee craves to leave to add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. The facts in brief is that assesse company is engaged in the business of trading of fresh fruits. The return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 was filed on 31.10.2015 declaring loss of Rs.6

I G INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

section 234B of Rs.3,16,033/-. The assessee craves to leave to add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. The facts in brief is that assesse company is engaged in the business of trading of fresh fruits. The return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 was filed on 31.10.2015 declaring loss of Rs.6

I G INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

section 234B of Rs.3,16,033/-. The assessee craves to leave to add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. The facts in brief is that assesse company is engaged in the business of trading of fresh fruits. The return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 was filed on 31.10.2015 declaring loss of Rs.6