Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member, Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member
KOMAL ENTERPRISES DOMBIVALI – Appellant
Versus
ITO WARD 3(3) KALYAN KALYAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case details and procedural background (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. assessee's grounds challenging reopening and deduction (Para 3) |
| 3. factual background of housing project and assessments (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. assessee's objections to reopening reasons (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. revenue's defense of reopening jurisdiction (Para 9) |
| 6. reopening invalid due to change of opinion (Para 10) |
| 7. appeals allowed for both years (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
Both the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012- 13, date of both the orders 29.05.2025. Both the impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Mumbai (for brevity the “Ld. AO”) order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act date of orders 28.12.2018.
2. Both the appeals have same nature of fact and have a common issue. Both the appeals have taken together, heard together and disposed of by a common order. ITA No.4420/Mum/2025 for A.Y. 2011-12 is taken as lead case.
3. Assessee has taken the following gro
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
