DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 271(1)C of the Act r.w explanation 1 and unilaterally deleted the penalty and action of the CIT(A) is not as per the provisions of law and supported the penalty order of the Assessing Officer. 7. Contra, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has considered the facts and catena of judicial decisions and decisions

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD, THANE

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Since, the aforesaid issued raised in the cross objection is a purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter, in our considered opinion, such issue has to be decided at the very outset. However, before we proceed to decide the aforesaid issue, it must be observed

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. SAI ANAND CONSTRCTION, THANE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sai Anand Construction Tax Shop No. 22-27, Saitirth Circle-3, Room No. 02, 6 Th Siddarth Nagar, Kopri Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Colony Thane(E)-400 603 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aakfm2891B

271(1)(c) of the Act to safeguard the legal interest of the assessee. In the process of filing memorandum of cross-objection there has been delay of 56 days which the assessee most respectfully prays to the Hon'ble Bench to condone the delay and to take into consideration the legal issue raised in the memorandum of cross-objection

FORBES & COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. Dcit, Circle 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan Ground Floor, Forbes Bldg. Vs. M.K. Road Charanjit Rai Marg Mumbai 400020 Fort, Mumbai 400001 Pan - Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Assessing Officer (AO) for A.Y. 2002-03. 2. Order on condonation of delay

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.7130,7131,7132/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai ITO, Ward 30(1)(2), Shah, [NOW] D-305, Shri Siddhivinayak ITO Ward 41(3)(1), Vs. Tower, Orlam, Off. Tank Road, Room No. 847, 8th Floor, Malad West, Mumbai -400064. Kautilya Bhavan

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.7130,7131,7132/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai ITO, Ward 30(1)(2), Shah, [NOW] D-305, Shri Siddhivinayak ITO Ward 41(3)(1), Vs. Tower, Orlam, Off. Tank Road, Room No. 847, 8th Floor, Malad West, Mumbai -400064. Kautilya Bhavan

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.7130,7131,7132/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai ITO, Ward 30(1)(2), Shah, [NOW] D-305, Shri Siddhivinayak ITO Ward 41(3)(1), Vs. Tower, Orlam, Off. Tank Road, Room No. 847, 8th Floor, Malad West, Mumbai -400064. Kautilya Bhavan

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay of three\ndays in filing the cross objection and admit the same for\nadjudication.\n4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee had filed\nreturn of income on 31.10.2005 declaring total income at\nRs.43,80,32,246/- under the normal provisions of the Act and\nRs.1,98,56,14,437/- u/s 115JB

MR. SURESH HENRY THOMAS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

delay in filing both the aforesaid appeals of 357 days is hereby condoned and appeals are ordered to be registered and is being heard on merits. 4. The assessee by filing the present appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred

MR SURESH HENRY THOMAS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-9(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

delay in filing both the aforesaid appeals of 357 days is hereby condoned and appeals are ordered to be registered and is being heard on merits. 4. The assessee by filing the present appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred

VIJAY MORU MHATRE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THANE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Moru Mhatre, Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Plot No. 08, 1St Floor 6Th Floor Room No. 10, Mcch Society, Panvel Road No. 16-Z, Ashar It Maharashtra – 410206 Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpm8104Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Khushiram Jadhawani Respondent By : Usha Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

c) is bad in law inasmuch as the Assessing Officer, in the impugned printed notice dated 23.12.2019 issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271, has not specifically mentioned the charge brought against the appellants that is, whether it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of particulars of income (photo copy of notice enclosed as Exhibit

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

condone the delay and admit the cross objection to decide the issues on merit. 5. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.20,19,580/- as exempt income. On query, the assessee explained that it has suo motu disallowed an amount of Rs.2,501/- under

EUREKA OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE (1), THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

Delay condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of call centre and had filed its return of income dated 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of Rs.21,07,072/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS for verifying “high ratio of refund to TDS, certificate

SHRI BHANWARLAL M. HARSH,THANE vs. DY CIT CC-3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Bhanwarlal M Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) A/2, 406, Runwal Plaza, Air India Building Nr. Koresh India Vartak Nariman Point, Nagar, Thane (West) Mumbai - 400021 400606 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacph5666F Appellant .. Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) 2. The Honorable CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings and the mere fact that ITA No.538/Mum/2021 A.Y.2011-12 2 Shri Bhanwarlal M. Shah Vs. DCIT, CC-3(3) disallowance is confirmed cannot per-se lead to concealment of any income because assessment

ACIT CIR 7(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodacit, Circle-7(2)(2) M/S Novartis India Pvt. Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, Sandoz House, Shivsagar Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai- 400 018 Pan – Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 275(1)(a) of the Act and hence the penalty order should be held as null and void. 3. Without prejudice to Ground no 1, the respondents submit that the ACIT's action of issuing penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 28.08.2013 does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty was sought