LAXMAN GORE SHRESHTHA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

147\nof Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that reopening is on the basis of incorrect\ndetails, facts and data regarding interest income on account of which no addition\nmade in the reassessment order.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the grounds that assessment was\nreopened after four years without the sanction from PCIT-22 u/s

LAXMAN GORE SHRESHTHA,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of order dated 21/12/2019. 2. In the outset, both the appeals have same nature of facts and common issues, ITA No.1908/Mum/2024 is taken as lead case. ITA 1908/Mum/2024 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s

ANILKUMAR A. TIWARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

u/s. 80C and 80G he directed the Assessing Officer to\nverify and give the benefit. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee\nwas partly allowed.\n08.\nThe assessee was aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before\nus.\n09.\nThe learned authorized representative did not press ground number\none of the appeals, therefore, same is dismissed. Assessee\nsubmitted a paper

SHRI. BISHMIT SINGH CHAWLA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bishmit Singh Chawla Ito Ward 41(4)(1) Coregaon Wine Shop No. Ii Room No. 603 Hanuman Tekdi, Opp. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Western Express Highway Bandra Kurla Goregaon East Complex, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 063. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Afapc7509P Appellant Respondent

80C and 80D of chapter VIA of the Act of the Act respectively 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld NFAC/CIT(A) erred in initiating the reassessment proceeding under section 147 2 Bishmit Singh Chawla 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld NFAC/CIT(A) failed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , KALYAN vs. M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

147 of the Act. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO stated that from A.Y. 2001-02 onward the provisions of section10A of and 10B of the Act have been brought at per with the other section dealing with deductions allowed under chapters VI-A of the Act. From first April 2001 onwards the brought forward losses pertaining

SATISH RAJAJI RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming 100% addition of purchase made from M/s Harshil Ferommet Pvt. Ltd., Dinesh Industrial Corporation, Sidhivinayak Steel, Navkar Corporation, Surat Tube Corporation, Asian Steel, Subh Enterprises, Varsha Enterprises, Vandhana Steel

GIRIRAJ KISHAN SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act were not fulfilled. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Jaw, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer was without considering the setoff of loss under the head 'Income from House property

ASST CIT CIR 23, MUMBAI vs. OBEROI REALITY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cir.23, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 002 ... Appellant

reassessed the income at Rs.14,36,67,009/-, inter-alia, restricting the relief under section 80IB(10) of the Act to the extent of Rs.68,18,56,583/-. The action of the Assessing Officer in restricting the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) is the subject matter of controversy in the Revenue’s appeal. 3.1 The stand

SUDHIR NAMDEV KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

reassessment without complying with the mandatory provisions 1 Sudhir Namdev Kadam of Section 148A, thereby rendering the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B as bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

RAJESH M JAIN (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for Short “The Act”). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal reads as under: “GOA No.1 Opportunity of Hearing :  The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC not given proper opportunity of hearing before dismissing the said appeal.  The said appeal was filed on 05/02/2019 vide Form 35 bearing acknowledgment

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