JAGDISH U. THACKERSAY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIRCLE) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

reassessment made u/s 147 is bad in law, illegal and non-est. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that Assessing officer has reopened the case on the basis of audit objection, and therefore the reopening of assessment is illegal, bad-in-law and non-est. 5. Without prejudice to the above, appellant submits

DEVI MANUBHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO - CIRCLE 32(1) , MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has made solitary addition of INR.83,43,016/- by disallowing exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 54F of the Act. No addition/disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on any of the issues/reasons recorded for reopening assessment. Therefore, the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained in view

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

ANJALI PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

147 which also falls within this Chapter deals with income escaping assessment and section 148 provides for issuance of notice where income has escaped assessment. Section 149 sets out a time limit for notice. Then, appear sections 149, 151 and 153 which, inter-alia, deal with time limit, sanction for issue and time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

147 of the Act, which in the present case, in our opinion, have not been satisfied. We find that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact qua sale of shares in Viraj Profile Ltd for correct assessment of income and, therefore, we are not in a position to sustain the order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

147 of the Act, which in the present case, in our opinion, have not been satisfied. We find that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact qua sale of shares in Viraj Profile Ltd for correct assessment of his income and, therefore, we are not in a position to sustain the order

ESQUE FINMARK PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-47, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Blem/S. Esquefinmark Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle – 47 9A, Chunawala Compound Room No. 658/676 Parel Tank Road Aayakar Bhavan Kalachowki, Mumbai - 400033 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaace8307P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Hema Kataria Department By D.K. Gupta

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of ci person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

VILAS SADASHIV NALAWADE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

u/s. 147 of the IT Act ignoring the fact that Appellant had offered Income under the head Capital gain at Rs. 2,24,383/- in the said return filed in response to notice under section 147 of the Act. 3. The appeal is time barred by 878 days, but the assessee has moved a petition, duly supported by an affidavit

KASHINATH NARAYAN PATIL,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, MUMBAI, NEW PANVEL

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6767/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

U/s 147 of the I.T. Act. In that case, the AO had received information from the office of DDIT (Investigation) Gisrgaon that investigation were conducted by that office with respect to bogus entries of longterm capital gain taken by some assessees from one bank account of M/s. Maheswari Sons, A,/c. No. 8627, Punjab National Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi

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

54F to the amount of Rs.11,54,00,000/-. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of Revenue stand dismissed. Ground No. 3: 11 Appeals Shri Hitesh Chhatwal Vs. DCIT, CC-5(4) 35 9. The facts and the issue are involved this ground are the same as discussed above supra in this order in ITA No. 6715/Mum/2021.The Coordinate bench

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

147 r.w.s. 144 had been concluded from the information from various mutual fund AMCs about the initiation of recovery proceedings u/s. 226(3), dated 26.03.2018. 6.2. According to the Ld. Counsel, the sole basis of not allowing the claim of the assessee of the deduction u/s. 54 is non filing of return by the assessee. In this respect, Ld. counsel

VISHALV SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri C.N. Prasad Shri Vishal V. Shah Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1) 30 Warden Court Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Vs. 79-81 August Kranti Marg Mumbai 400007 Mumbai 400036 Pan – Advps8129B Appellant Respondent

147 is bad in law, notice u/s 148 is bad in law no application of mind by A.O. No independent enquiry were made by A.O. 7. CIT[A] has confirm order passed by A.O. by violating principle of natural justice. 8. CIT[A] has ignore fact that appellant purchase physical shares which were duly transfer in his name than send

ITO 25(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. KIRIT RAOJIBHAI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

54F. 03. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is an individual resident who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring total income of ₹1,67,420/- on 24.12.2007. Assessee was assessed under section 143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2009. Kirit Raojibhai Patel; AY 07-08 04. Facts shows that assessee is having

KEVAL H SETH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar, Hon’Blekeval H. Seth V. Ito, Ward 16(2)(1), 17-D Malabar Apartment Matrumandir, Nepeansea Road Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400036 Mumbai- 400007 Pan: Afbps4180H

section 151 (2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in concluding that the transactions with M/s. Alliance Intermediatories& Network Pvt. Ltd. are bogus and disallowing the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.54.60.292/- thus making an addition

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

54F for investment in new property. 3. In the present appeal, essentially the issue to be decided is on legal ground, challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 on account of being barred by limitation and consequent reassessment order passed u/s. 147 being bad in law. Since, the issue involved is legal and the facts relating thereto are already

LATE SHRI. KASAM NURMAD KARADIYA,JOGESHWARI, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarlate Shri Kasam Nurmad V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Karadiya बनाम 41(4)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, (Through His Legal Heir Shri Rahemtullah Kasambhai Avenue 3, Near Videsh Karadiya) 804, Anand Co-Op Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Hsg Society, Behram Baug Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Jogeshwari West, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Mumbai–400102, Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahpk5855E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 54F of the I.T Act, 1961, misinterpreting the provisions of law by holding the date of registration of agreement as the date of purchase of new flat as against the actual date being the date of allotment/date of the amount receivable from developer having been adjusted against the allotment of flat i.e on 13/04/2012. 6. The appellant therefore prays

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice under section 148 was issued on 22/07/2022.\n\n2.4 Thereafter, various notices under section 143(2) and 142[1] was issued on the Appellant, in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the appellant had furnish the complete details and evidence including contract note for purchase and sale of shares