DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section

ROHIT LALIT SANGHAVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

TDS had been deducted and paid in time. The Ld. AR relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 0026 submitted that the impugned order is not in accordance with the law laid down by the 3 Assessment Year

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271F, 14[section 271FA section 271FA,] 15[section 271FAA,] 16 16[section 271FAB,] 17[ [section 271FB,] 18[section 271G,]] 19 19[section 271GA,] 20[section 271GB section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 22[section 271H,] 23[section 271 section 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] clause (c) or ,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub clause (d) of sub-section

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271F, 14[section 271FA section 271FA,] 15[section 271FAA,] 16 16[section 271FAB,] 17[ [section 271FB,] 18[section 271G,]] 19 19[section 271GA,] 20[section 271GB section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 22[section 271H,] 23[section 271 section 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] clause (c) or ,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub clause (d) of sub-section

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271F, 14[section 271FA section 271FA,] 15[section 271FAA,] 16 16[section 271FAB,] 17[ [section 271FB,] 18[section 271G,]] 19 19[section 271GA,] 20[section 271GB section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 22[section 271H,] 23[section 271 section 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] clause (c) or ,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub clause (d) of sub-section

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271F, 14[section 271FA section 271FA,] 15[section 271FAA,] 16 16[section 271FAB,] 17[ [section 271FB,] 18[section 271G,]] 19 19[section 271GA,] 20[section 271GB section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 22[section 271H,] 23[section 271 section 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] clause (c) or ,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub clause (d) of sub-section

POONAM SANTOSH GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(4)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

TDS) under the PAN of the assessee's husband, clearly indicating that the income did not pertain to the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the specific contention of the assessee that in response to notices issued under Section

M/S MUMBADEVI VEYHICLES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Mumbadevi Ito Ward 41(4)(2), Veyhicles Room No. 854B, 8Th Shop No. 18, Suyash Vs. Floor, Kautilya Shopping Centre, Nnp, A. Bhavan, Bkc, K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Bandra (East), (E), Mumbai-400 065 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaofm0851F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026

271F were also initiated for failure to file return under section 139. 6. Thereafter, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied vide order dated 29.09.2022, wherein the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,51,564/- holding that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income by not filing the return under section 139 and by offering income

PIYUSH A. VORA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhpiyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent) Piyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent) Ta No.3223/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Piyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent) Piyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent)

271F. Thus, in our view, no penalty was leviable under section 271(1)(c), on the fact of the present case. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 3223/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12 [under section 271(1)(c)] 12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. A. The Ld. Commissioner

SUSHIL RAJBANSHI GUPTA,BHANDUP WEST MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(4)(4), KAUTILYA BHAVAN BKC MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TDS. 6. For that the appellant objects, the initiation of penalty proceedings under Sections 270A, 271F, 271AAC, and 272A(1)(d) of the Act which