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

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

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

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

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(1)(d

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

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

IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,MUMBAI, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-5, AYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

d)the order has not been passed in accordance with any\ndecision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional\nHigh Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.\n[Explanation 3. — For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer"\nshall have the same meaning as assigned