ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

section 144B. The Assessing Officer made the following additions: (i) Short Term Capital Gain – Rs. 4,54,49,186/- It was observed that the assessee had sold multiple properties during the relevant previous year. Since no explanation regarding capital gains or cost of acquisition was furnished, the Assessing Officer treated the entire 3 Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited sale

THE ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI SHELTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

144B of the Income Tax Act by the National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 03. Addition of Rs.74,60,68,166/- was made u/s. 68 of the Act on account of capital contribution from M/s. J.P. Infra (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. by treating it as unexplained credit, thereby assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.74,60,68,166/-. 04. The appellant

M/S. LIFELINE MEDICARE HOSPITALS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

68 of the income tax act. 08. Thus the assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144B

ITO 12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEXT AVENUE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED(EARLIER KNOWN AS KBJ VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

68 of the income tax act. 08. Thus the assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144B

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. K K VENTURA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands\ndismissed

144B on 06/08/2021, wherein the Assessing Officer\nbrought to tax unexplained loans aggregating\nto\n*8,43,50,000/- under section 68

SKA SALES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICSR, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

144B", "Section 68", "Section 69", "Section 69C", "Section 148", "Section 148A", "Section 149", "Section

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

68 treating dividend of Rs. 39,53,95,619/- as unexplained cash credit is unsustainable in law and on facts. 45. Accordingly, the reassessment order dated 29.05.2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144B

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JAY BHARAT MEHTA, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021- 2022. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessment Year 2021-2022 CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. M/S. INDIC WISDOM PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

144B of the Act, making an addition under section 68 amounting to Rs.1,04,79,916/- on account of the share

ACIT22(1), MUMBAI vs. UNIQUE BANGLES, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit-22(1) Unique Bangles, 322, Piramal 232/234, Shah & Chambers, Mumbai – Vs. Nahar Industrial 400 013. Estate, S. J. Mar, Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400019 Pan/Gir No. Aadfu8125A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chhajed & Shri Sunil Vankawala, Ld. Ars Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

144B on 25.03.2025 determining the total income at Rs. 24,70,39,423/- as against the returned income of Rs. 87,43,270/-. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were as under: 1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on account of alleged failure to deduct tax at source on various payments such as purchases, professional fees, rent

M/S.RUNWAL COMMERCIAL ASSETS PVT LTD (NOW MERGED WITH WHEELABRATOR ALLOY CASTINGS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Runwal Commercial Ito Ward-15(3)(1), Assets Pvt. Ltd. (Now Aayakar Bhavan, Merged With Vs. Maharshi Karve Wheelabrator Alloy Road, New Marine Castings Limited) Lines, Churchgate, Runwal & Omkar Mumbai-400 020 Esquires, 4Th Floor, Off Eastern Exp. Highway Opp. Sion Chuan Bhatti Signal, Sion East, Mumbai-400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aajcr7366J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026

144B dated 25.03.2025. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 26.09.2023 declaring total income of (-) Rs. 14,82,894/- (Loss). The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS on the issues of: (i) Substantial increase in share capital in a year; and (ii) Non-compliance with Indian Accounting

RAMESH AMRATLAL BRAHMBHATT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the reassessment order dated 20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Amratlal Ito Ward 34(3)(2), Brahmbhatt Kautilya Bhavan, 43 Rajnigandha, Vs. Bandra Kurla Gulmohar Cross Road No. Complex, Mumbai – 11, J V P D Scheme, 400 051 Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 Pan/Gir No. Aabpb7235R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2026

144B vide order dated 20.05.2023 determining total income at Rs. 3,86,90,692/- by making addition of Rs. 3,80,79,292/- under section 68

AADESH COMMODITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

144B of the Act dated 30.09.2021 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned assessment order’) is liable to be quashed; 2. Addition of Rs. 1,32,65,571/- under section 68

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

144B", "Section 68", "Section 115BBE" ], "issues": "The main issues involved are the allowability of DTA as a deduction

BBN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

144B", "Section 68", "Section 40A(3)", "Section 194C", "Section 143(2)", "Section 144"], "issues": "Whether

SHRIKANT FINCONSERY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals preferred by the Appellant are allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act, on 27/03/2022 accepting the returned income filed by the Appellant. 6.3. Vide order, dated 19/03/2024, passed by the Learned PCIT in exercise of powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act, the above order, dated 27/3/2022, was set aside on the ground that the same was erroneous in so far as prejudicial

SHRIKANT FINCONSERV PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals preferred by the Appellant are allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act, on 27/03/2022 accepting the returned income filed by the Appellant. 6.3. Vide order, dated 19/03/2024, passed by the Learned PCIT in exercise of powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act, the above order, dated 27/3/2022, was set aside on the ground that the same was erroneous in so far as prejudicial

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 144B of the Act was not valid. Conclusion 38. In view of the above findings and discussion, the appeal filed by the department deserves to bed is missed. Result 39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025filed by the assessee is allowed. Hans Raj Agarwal the appeal-ITA No.1253/JPR/2024filed by department

EXECUTIVE TRADING CO. PVT LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. COMM OF INCOME TAX (A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

144B of the Act on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings as well as on the merits of the addition. However, the contentions/submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellant in appeal did not find any favour with the CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed vide order, dated 30/12/2022. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred