ALOK JOSHI,UTTRAKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections": ["143(3)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "246A", "271(1)(b)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "144", "271(1)(b)", "249", "5", "5", "271(1)(b)", "144"], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned

NARENDRAKUMAR LALCHAND JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarendrakumar Lalchand Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), C/O G.P. Mehta & Co, Cas Mumbai. Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 021 Pan: Acwpj4288P Appellant Respondent

271(1)(b) is barred by limitation. This contention is misconceived. As per section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the limitation period for passing a penalty order, where no appeal is filed against the assessment order, is the end of the financial year in which the assessment proceedings are completed or six months from the end of the month

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

B)” 3. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the impugned appeal by 101 days. Before us, the assessee has referred the affidavit filed on 04.08.2023 and submitted that assesse was pursuing two appeals before the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 both

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 273B of the Act and hence the penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F may be deleted.” 4. In ITA. No. 708/Mum./2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee challenging penalty order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) on the ground of delay without appreciating that there

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 273B of the Act and hence the penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F may be deleted.” 4. In ITA. No. 708/Mum./2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee challenging penalty order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) on the ground of delay without appreciating that there

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.383 & 384/M/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas, Income Tax Officer- 305, 2a, Raheja Classique, 9(2)(3), Room No.601A, 6th Floor, New Link Road, Vs. Oshowara, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 061 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAAPT4832B

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.383 & 384/M/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas, Income Tax Officer- 305, 2a, Raheja Classique, 9(2)(3), Room No.601A, 6th Floor, New Link Road, Vs. Oshowara, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 061 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAAPT4832B

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

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)

condonation of delay on merit. Hence, this decision is not applicable in the Assessee's case. The facts in the assessee's case are different. The delay in filing of an additional ground is 16 years and no cogent evidence or no explanation has been filed by the assessee to justify the substantial delay of 16 years. In fact

MR BIMAL H. KIRI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

b) of the Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 09. ITA No. 1337/Mum/2023 is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT (A), confirming the levy of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by order dated 26th September, 2014, passed by the learned Assessing Officer

MR BIMAL H. KIRI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

b) of the Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 09. ITA No. 1337/Mum/2023 is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT (A), confirming the levy of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by order dated 26th September, 2014, passed by the learned Assessing Officer

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 PALGHAR, THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -1 PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired