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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

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 Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Manish Financial

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

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 Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Manish Financial

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

68 of the Act. 5.1 For taking up this reassessment proceedings, notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 18.06.2022, for which order under section 148A(d) was passed on 20.07.2022. Subsequently, notice under section 148 was issued on 20.07.2022. Computation of limitation as per decision of, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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 section 148, section 149

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KALPANA MADHANI SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit-14(1)(1) M/S. Kalpana Madhani R. No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Securities Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 11/1102, Shanti Tower, Shanti Mumbai-400 020 Path, Near Garodia Nagar, Mumbai-400 077 Pan: Aabck2968H

section 149 of the Act. But the AO did not consider the said submissions and passed the assessment order. CO-162/Mum/2024 M/s. Kalpana Madhani Securities Pvt. Ltd. 7. The assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the legality of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act alongwith the addition made u/s 68

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S LUXORA REALTORS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

149,03,66,361/-. During the course of the search proceedings at the residential premises of Shri Swapnesh Agarwal, Finance Controller of Soham Group, a Pen Drive was found and seized which contained an excel sheet in the name of ‘LRPL TDR’. On analysis of the above excel sheet it was found that the sheet contained details of the payments

KETUKUMAR KRISHNAVADAN PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. The Revenue accepts that without application of TOLA, the time limit for issuance of reassessment notices after 1 April 2021 expires for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 in the following manner: (i) for the assessment years

KETUKUMAR KRISHNAVADAN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. The Revenue accepts that without application of TOLA, the time limit for issuance of reassessment notices after 1 April 2021 expires for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 in the following manner: (i) for the assessment years

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

149 taxmann.com 123 (SC) has held that said amendment shall be be applicable on searches conducted u/s 132 of conducted u/s 132 of the Act even before 01.06.2015 and therefore, now invoking of before 01.06.2015 and therefore, now invoking of before 01.06.2015 and therefore, now invoking of section 153C of the Act in the case of section 153C

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

149 of the Act has to be\ncounted from the end of relevant\n assessment year till date of order which\nis subject matter of appeal wherein\ndirections were passed.\"\n21. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal under\nsomewhat similar facts in the case of Anil Suri Vs. ITO\n[2014] 46 taxman.com 8 Mumbai has allowed the appeal

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)

149, 151 and 153 of the Act, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section

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

149, 151 and 153 of the Act, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section

CLE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 149(1) while applying the six year Rule the limitation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act expire on 31.03.2022 which is outside the limit from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021 prescribed by the TOLA. . Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.07.2022 is barred by limitation since the same is not covered

CLE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 149(1) while applying the six year Rule the limitation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act expire on 31.03.2022 which is outside the limit from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021 prescribed by the TOLA. . Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.07.2022 is barred by limitation since the same is not covered

DINESH SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh Shah (Huf), Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(4), Flat No. 434, Shabri Shikhar, Mumbai. Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur (W), Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aadhs 0544 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 Order

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground in all the appeals challenging the validity of the reassessment challenging

DINESH SHAH (HUF) ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR-3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh Shah (Huf), Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(4), Flat No. 434, Shabri Shikhar, Mumbai. Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur (W), Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aadhs 0544 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 Order

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground in all the appeals challenging the validity of the reassessment challenging

DINESH SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR, MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh Shah (Huf), Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(4), Flat No. 434, Shabri Shikhar, Mumbai. Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur (W), Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aadhs 0544 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 Order

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground in all the appeals challenging the validity of the reassessment challenging

DINESH SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh Shah (Huf), Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(4), Flat No. 434, Shabri Shikhar, Mumbai. Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur (W), Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aadhs 0544 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 Order

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground Act’). Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground in all the appeals challenging the validity of the reassessment challenging

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

149 of the Act. Hence, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the entire reassessment proceedings conducted pursuant to the same are without jurisdiction and bad in law. Addition under section 68