MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly confirmed the additions in respective years. 5. Being aggrieved by the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. Lengthy arguments were advanced before the Tribunal on the legal issue regarding the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act without

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly confirmed the additions in respective years. 5. Being aggrieved by the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. Lengthy arguments were advanced before the Tribunal on the legal issue regarding the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act without

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly confirmed the additions in respective years. 5. Being aggrieved by the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. Lengthy arguments were advanced before the Tribunal on the legal issue regarding the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act without

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly confirmed the additions in respective years. 5. Being aggrieved by the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. Lengthy arguments were advanced before the Tribunal on the legal issue regarding the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act without

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly confirmed the additions in respective years. 5. Being aggrieved by the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. Lengthy arguments were advanced before the Tribunal on the legal issue regarding the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act without

MRS. RENU TIKAMDAS THARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 127 of the IT Act 1961 bearing No. 45/Centralisation/CIT-IV/2013-14 dated 20.12.2013 Information has been received in respect of her from the office of DIT(Inv.). Bangalore. The information pertains to her having a bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva bearing a number BUP_SIFIC_PER_ID -5090178411. From the said bank statement, it is seen that she is having

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). Such tax rate of 60% will be further increased by 25% surcharge, 6% penalty, i.e., the final tax rate comes out to be 83.25% (including cess). Provided that such 6% penalty shall not be levied when the income under Section 68, 69, etc., has been

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 have not been challenged on behalf of the Assessee. The appeals before the Tribunal are being pursued by the mother of the Appellant being his legal heir and duly constituted attorney of other ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021

RITESH AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

147 of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section Act. Since the assessee has challenged the very validity of such Act. Since the assessee has challenged the very validity of such Act. Since the assessee has challenged the very validity of such reasons on the ground that they rest upon

DCIT (EX) - 1(1), MUMBAI vs. THE LOHAR CHAWL DAWOODI BOHRA MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Dy. Commissioner Of The Lohar Chawl Dawoodi Income Tax (Ex) -1(1) Bohra Merchants’ Association Room No. 506, 5 Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 56/62, Chandabai Bldg., Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, 2Nd Floor, Mangaldas Road, Lohar Chawl, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 002 Pan No. Aaatl0024D Appellant .. Respondent

147 of the Act for assessment years 2008 – 09 and 2009 – 10 and further, u/s 143 (3) of the Act for assessment year 2014-15 which were all passed after the impugned order of the Assessing Officer, accepting the claim of the assessee therefore, the learned assessing officer is not justified in denying the exemption u/s

BHAGAWATI M JAIN,DOMBIVALI vs. WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhagawati M Jain Income Tax Officer C-22, Bhanu Chs, Ward 3(1), Bhanu Nagar, Dombivali East, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Kalyan - 421201 Kalyan-Murbad Rd, Maharashtra Kalyan-Dombivali, Maharashtra, 421301 (Pan: Aatpj1123G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073449956(1), Dated 19.02.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S. 147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income- Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

section 151. Therefore order passed u/s 147 is liable to be quashed and void-ab-initio. 4. On the given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer by making addition of Rs. 21,99,000/- u/s 69B. Such confirming of addition u/s 69B is bad in law and addition

SHRI. PRADIP CHOPRA,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT (C) 3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Pradip Chopra V. Pr. Cit – (C)-3 19Th Floor, Air India Building 23, Maheshwar Niketan Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aacpc0068J

147 not order passed u/s 153A. He briefly explained the search proceedings and he also submitted that the assesse rejected the unrecorded transactions as did not pertain to him because of the name spelling i.e., Pradip or Pradeep. Hence Assessee has consistently failed to declare his correct income. Rest, he relied on the order of the Pr CIT passed u/s

M/S EVERFINE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

reassessment notice issued solely on basis of statement is without jurisdiction. 6.6. Finally, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also argued that it is a clear case of borrowed satisfaction without any conduct of enquiry prior to reopening but being made simply by relying upon a statement of third party during survey, which in any case is vague and that

CHAITALEE SACHIN DEOKAR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-IT -2, MUMBAI

reassessment.\n(c) The CIT has failed to appreciate that the onus u/s. 69 or\nsection 69B or section 69C is squarely on the department and\nfurther that this onus could not have been discharged by the\nassessing officer in absence of material available with the\nassessing officer.\n(d) Without prejudice to the above, the CIT has erred

BALALJI LIFESTYLE REALTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3172/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Balaji Lifestyle बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-7(1) Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. 118/120, Ashoka House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0234H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Dated 02.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature So Does Not Require Any Adjudication.

69B of the Act as 2,63,00,000/- 16,34,85,656/- discussed above Gross Total Income 16,34,85,656/- Less: Chapter VIA Deductions --- Net Total Income 16,34,85,656/- Rounded off u/s 288A 16,34,85,660/- 5. Thereafter, the AO issued impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2014 conveying his desire to reopen

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

u/s 694 r.w.s. 69B of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (hereinunder referred to as 'the Act') of Rs. 1,33,98,747 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld CITIA) erred in not sending the additional evidences if any filed during the appellate proceedings to the Assessing Officer as per the provisions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. E I RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

u/s 694 r.w.s. 69B of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (hereinunder referred to as 'the Act') of Rs. 1,33,98,747 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld CITIA) erred in not sending the additional evidences if any filed during the appellate proceedings to the Assessing Officer as per the provisions

MOUNT VIEW CLUB & RESORTS P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 are allowed and the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.1358 To 1360 & 1362/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07 M/S. Mount View Club & The Ito-10(3)(4), बनाम/ Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 27, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi Navi Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm 5353M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Prakash Pandit Shri Asghar Zain Vp ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

69B of the Act in respect of difference in cost of construction as per valuation report and the cost of construction recorded in the books of accounts by the assessee. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the CIT(A) sustained the reopening of assessments and also the reference to valuation cell by the Assessing