LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

200A is not a source of substantive power. Substantive power to levy fee can be traced to section 234E of the Act. Further the fee under section 234E of the Act is not in lieu of the penalty of section 271H of the Act. Both are independent levies. Section 271H only provides that such penalty would not be levy

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

200A is not a source of substantive power. Substantive power to levy fee can be traced to section 234E of the Act. Further the fee under section 234E of the Act is not in lieu of the penalty of section 271H of the Act. Both are independent levies. Section 271H only provides that such penalty would not be levy

LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

200A is not a source of substantive power. Substantive power to levy fee can be traced to section 234E of the Act. Further the fee under section 234E of the Act is not in lieu of the penalty of section 271H of the Act. Both are independent levies. Section 271H only provides that such penalty would not be levy

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

200A is not a source of substantive power. Substantive power to levy fee can be traced to section 234E of the Act. Further the fee under section 234E of the Act is not in lieu of the penalty of section 271H of the Act. Both are independent levies. Section 271H only provides that such penalty would not be levy

K. JAYANTILAL SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4715/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) K Jayantilal Securities Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd), बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Ps 4, Circle 4(3), Room No. 649, Rotunda Building Dalal Street, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai – 400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaack 4621 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sanjay C. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 05.05.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2005- 06. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: Learned Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Learned Assessing Officer In Levying Income Tax @ 30% On Short Term Capital Gains On Sale Of Shares Of Rs.3,47,979/- As Against 10% U/S. 111A Of The Act As Claimed By The Appellant.

c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB. (1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

capital contribution of assessee. In any case there is nothing adverse in the said information which requires consideration (Refer page 4 of assessment order). CIT(A) has not recorded single finding on the basis of such report which requires adverse consideration. Thus entire premise of initiating proceedings u/s 154 are based on no adverse evidence. No mistake apparent of record

PRAVIN PRAKASH MAGAR,MAHARASHTRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS- WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Pravin Prakash Magar Cit(Appeals) Ward 4, Panvel B 106 Pratiksha Chs Plot No. 55, Panvel, Maharashtra 410206 Vs. Sec 15, Koper Khairne, Kopar Khairne S.O., Mumbai 400709 Pan No. Bpapm1266A Appellant Respondent : Shri.Pravin Magar (Assessee In Person) Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appear) Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 Date Of : 03/11/2025 Pronouncement Order Per Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 16.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] For Ay 2024-25 In Relation To Order U/S. 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short The ‘Act’] Passed By The Ao For Short Deduction Of Tax At Source On Payment Made For Purchase Of Property From Non-Resident Indian. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Pravin Prakash Magar CIT(Appeals) Ward 4, Panvel B 106 Pratiksha CHS Plot No. 55, Panvel, Maharashtra 410206 Vs. Sec 15, Koper Khairne, Kopar Khairne S.O., Mumbai 400709 PAN NO. BPAPM1266A Appellant Respondent : Shri.Pravin Magar (Assessee in person) Assessee by Revenue