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

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub- section (3) of section 206C

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

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub- section (3) of section 206C

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

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Capital Gain, taking the cost of acquisition at Nil. (ii) Contract Receipts – Rs. 7,68,674/- The Assessing Officer noted contract receipts of Rs. 64,05,620/- on which tax was deducted at source under section 194C. As no explanation was furnished and it could not be verified whether the same was incorporated in the Profit and Loss account

DEEPAK VALJI KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

capital gain from the sale of scrip MJTL, based on the above observations Assessing Officer discussed in detail the investigations made by the investigation wing (Kolkata) and narrated the modus operandi operated 33 Shri Deepak Valji Karia by these operators in his order. It is fact on record, assessee has made investment in MJTL shares along with his family members

BAO VALUE FUND,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gain earned on sale of equity shares of Kushal Ltd was reported in the return of income that was filed. The appellant prays that the penalty proceedings initiated should be dropped. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO had erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 272A

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A; or (d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

Gains' and 'Income from Other Sources'. The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the completed under Section

GYANCHAND ROOPCHAND MADHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the\nassessee are allowed for statistical purposes

sections 234A,\n2348, 234C and 234D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating\nthe facts of the case.\n8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under\nsections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income

LALITA BHARATKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

272A(1)(d) of the Act. ITA No.6077/Mum/2025 is taken as lead case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 was issued for reopening

LALITA BHARATKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

272A(1)(d) of the Act. ITA No.6077/Mum/2025 is taken as lead case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 was issued for reopening

LALIT KUMAR MOHANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

272A(1)(d) of the Act. ITA No.6077/Mum/2025 is taken as lead case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 was issued for reopening

FARHAN ABDUL KADIR SAYED ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain during the year under consideration. Assessee’s return of income filed for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.5,05,970/- was subjected to limited scrutiny by way of issuance of notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), however, the assessee has not filed

NITIN NARNHERAM PATEL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnitin Narbheram Patel Flat No.1702/1802, Wing-F, Pirojshah Nagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (E) Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aajpp4339A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac Mumbai- ..... Respondent

272A and 131 of the fact to verify the genuineness of the advance received from Mr Ranchod J kalia. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,74,000/- amount received from Mr Ranchod J Kalia merely on the ground that assesseefailed to produce any evidence. 10. Your Appellant craves, leave to amend alter