INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

68 153C. 69 [(1)] 70[Notwithstanding anything contained in [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 147, section 148

SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Him.

148 in this case has been issued within the time limit of three years only, as calculated after excluding the period that should be excluded as per proviso 3 to section 149 and as has been brought out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal case. Other than above additional arguments were made on behalf of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

148 is barred by limitation as per proviso to section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by Finance Act, 2021. 4 erred in not considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (Civil Appeal No 8629 of 2024) and of the jurisdictional Mumbai

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68. He therefore, recorded his satisfaction that the income had escaped assessment and that this was due to the assessee having failed to disclose truly and fully all facts. [Para 7] Section 147 provides inter alia that if the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he may subject

CYRUS PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act in respect of sale proceeds of shares of Anuh Pharma Ltd. by wrongly treating the sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit. 4. The appellant respectfully submits that both the assessment unit and CIT (A) have erred in not appreciating the correct facts of the case and also the documentary evidences on record while considering

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "143(3)", "68", "142(1)", "143(2)", "144C(1)", "144C(3)" ], "issues": "Whether

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

148\nof the Act as per the amended provisions of Finance Act, 2021 for AY 2015-16 is\nupto 31 March 2022 which does not fall within the period of expiry of notice\nspecified under section 3(1) of the TOLA i.e. between 20th March 2020 to 31st\n\n5\nITA Nos.3674/Mum/2025 and ors.\nShapoorji Pallonji Mistry\nAYs

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

68 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 or recomputation, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice under sub-section (1) of section 148 ; (iii) the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M PALLONJI ENERPRISES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

68?" 3. . "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case . "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case . "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Id. CIT(A)was correct in deciding the issue and in Law, the Id. CIT(A)was correct in deciding

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

68", "Section 153A", "Section 153C", "Section 148", "Section 132", "Section 132A", "Section 131" ], "issues

GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

68,670/- for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 A.Y. 2016-17. The returned income for the A.Y. 2015-16 is Rs. 2,85,020/- and for the A.Y. 2014-15 the returned income is Rs. 2,09,190/- The notice issued by the DY CIT Circle (1)(2)(1) Mumbai is without jurisdiction and hence reassessment made under section

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

68,000/- observing that the Assessee had not claimed deduction for the aforesaid amount in the computation of income under normal provisions of the Act. As regards claim of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to grant deduction under Section 10AA of the Act and issued directions to the Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S.GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

148 of the Act is also invalid. Since we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the principal arguments, we are not deciding the other, without prejudice, submissions made before us during the course of hearing. Ground No.1 is therefore allowed. 9. The issue raised in ground No.2 is general in nature and need no separate adjudication

M/S. GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSETS MANAGEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

148 of the Act is also invalid. Since we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the principal arguments, we are not deciding the other, without prejudice, submissions made before us during the course of hearing. Ground No.1 is therefore allowed. 9. The issue raised in ground No.2 is general in nature and need no separate adjudication

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SUCHIR CHEMICALS PVT LTD, MUMBAI.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

148 of the Act dated 31.03.2015 and the same was served on the assessee. Notice u/s.143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. In response, AR of the assessee attended and submitted the relevant information as called for. Assessee was communicated the reasons recorded for reopening its case for assessment vide order sheet dated 28.01.2016. The relevant reasons recorded

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 68 of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the grounds challenging validity of the reas grounds challenging validity of the reassessment as well as upheld sessment as well as upheld the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on merit. the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on merit. 5. Before

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 68 of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the grounds challenging validity of the reas grounds challenging validity of the reassessment as well as upheld sessment as well as upheld the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on merit. the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on merit. 5. Before

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JMP SECURITIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The assessment order was passed under section 147 r/w section 144B of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 5,96,37,276 after making an addition of Rs. 4,44,11,556 under section 68

DCIT CENTRAL CIRLCE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KALYANJI VELJI (HUF), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

section 148 of the Act does not stand. The Assessing Officer is thus, directed to cancel the same. Consequently, the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed and we hold that assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is null and void. Consequently, the issue raised on merits by the assessee and the Revenue becomes academic