LEELABEN KANTILAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

151 of I.T. Act, 1961.” 16. From the perusal of the aforesaid reasons, it is evident that information was received from the office of DGIT (investigation), Mumbai in respect of Leelaben Kantilal Parekh ITA no.2926/Mum./2023 various assessees who have taken bogus/hawala/accommodation entries from certain parties to inflate the purchases, resulting in reduction of taxable profit. From the perusal

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35 (2AB) of the act has been considered. The learned coordinate bench in Para number 11.6.8 has categorically held that the requirement of form number 3CL has been introduced with effect from 1/7/2016 and prior to that there was no such requirement. The coordinate benches relied on the decision of the Pune bench

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that claim was made. It was also argued by the revenue that I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 6 the department has filed appeal against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD (JAO: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5(3), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD (JAO: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5(3), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5 (3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below

SHIVI MUKESH KUMAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen

151 is bad in law and as a result, the reassessment proceeding is bad in law. 3. Referring to this ground, ld. Counsel submitted, at the very outset, this issue may be considered and, if warranted the other issues can be taken up thereafter. As could be seen 2 Shivi Mukesh Kumar vs. ACIT from the ground raised

ARVIND VELJI GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

disallowance of of of LTCG LTCG LTCG of of of Rs. Rs. Rs. 1,01,85,745/- 1,01,85,745/ 1,01,85,745/ (Rs.1,11,85,745/-, minus Rs 10,00,000/ , minus Rs 10,00,000/-) and treating the same as non treating the same as non genuine and taxing the sale consideration

ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN , BKC, MUMBAI vs. ARVIND VELJI GADA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

disallowance of of of LTCG LTCG LTCG of of of Rs. Rs. Rs. 1,01,85,745/- 1,01,85,745/ 1,01,85,745/ (Rs.1,11,85,745/-, minus Rs 10,00,000/ , minus Rs 10,00,000/-) and treating the same as non treating the same as non genuine and taxing the sale consideration