BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions of the Act was complicated and difficult and in the absence

KANAIYALAL B SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhkanaiyalal B. Shah Jcit Range-19(2), 31, Jai Bhavani Society, Mumbai. Vs. 3 Rr Thakker Marg, Mumbai-400006. Pan: Aahpk4505D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Divya Jeswant (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr)

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Now, we shall proceed to consider the appeal on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case as extracted from the order of lower authorities, leading to levy of penalty under section 272A

BHAVESH GHANSHYAM ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTL TAX)-1,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

condoned the delay with a direction to the concerned Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. Against this order of ITAT, Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) vide M.A. No. 126/Mum/2019 under section 254(2) of the Act. In its M.A., Department raised the ground that order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is not appealable

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(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

BALAJI GRAPHICS ART PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) CPC GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: the Tribunal. 4. We would first take up ITA No. 1173/Mum/2024 [Financial Year 2012-13: Quarter 2/Form 27EQ] as the lead matter which has been preferred by the Assessee challenging the order, dated 2

condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the appeal on merits. Since all the grounds raised pertain to common issue of levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act the same are taken up together hereinafter. 6. The Appellant has challenged the levy of fee under Section

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the appeal on merits. Since all the grounds raised pertain to common issue of levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act the same are taken up together hereinafter. 6. The Appellant has challenged the levy of fee under Section

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the appeal on merits. Since all the grounds raised pertain to common issue of levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act the same are taken up together hereinafter. 6. The Appellant has challenged the levy of fee under Section

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the appeal on merits. Since all the grounds raised pertain to common issue of levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act the same are taken up together hereinafter. 6. The Appellant has challenged the levy of fee under Section

SANDHYA SITAL SANGTANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

Bench: Br Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhansandhya Sital Sangtani Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) 302, Anand Nagar Sec 17, Ito 28(3)(1), Vashi, Vashi Rly Stn, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aadpk5756E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar-Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 By Nfac Delhi Mumbai [In Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”], Vide This Impugned Order By Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2018- 19, Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On 2 Sandhya Sital Sangtani

condone the delay stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and dismissed the appeal without deciding the same on merit. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal and has raised the following grounds: “1. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

MAULANA AZAD ALPASANKHYANK ARTHIK VIKAS MAHAMANDAL MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WD-2(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to administrative

SHRI VINAY D. NARKAR,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT TDS, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2181/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri. Vinay D. Narkar, बिाम/ Addl. Cit(Tds), 1/3, James House, Ground Floor, B-Wing, Dsouza Wadi, Qureshi Mansion, V. Waglre Estate, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Shivaji Nagar Road No. 3, Thane-West, Thane-400604 Thane-400602 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aespn7371K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Shri. Rajiv Gubgaotra (Dr) Revenue By:

condone the delay of 1 day in filing this appeal late beyond time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act and admit this appeal. We order accordingly. 3.2 The assessee is holding Income-tax deduction Account Number(TAN) PNEV07443C allotted by Income Tax Department.The assessee being deductor of Income-tax at source has delayed filing of quarterly statement

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.

272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as the “Act”) amounting to Rs. 30,000/- for failing to comply the notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Act without

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.

272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as the “Act”) amounting to Rs. 30,000/- for failing to comply the notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Act without