VAIBHAV TEWARI, LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvaibhav Tewari, Vs. Cit(A), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai- 88 Krishna Niwas, Society 400051. Park Narhi, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan/Gir No: Aecpt2741P (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceeding initiated along with assessment order passed are liable to be quushed. 10. That the notice dated 20.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction

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

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 to consider that

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

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

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

147/-) claimed per his return of income for the year. The same stands disallowed in view of the said return having been furnished only on 26.3.2003, i.e., belatedly, precluding carry forward of determined loss in view of section 139(3). The (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT facts are admitted, and the assessee’s return

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

147/-) claimed per his return of income for the year. The same stands disallowed in view of the said return having been furnished only on 26.3.2003, i.e., belatedly, precluding carry forward of determined loss in view of section 139(3). The (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT facts are admitted, and the assessee’s return

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