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 , MUMBAI

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

MOBIL TRUST SERIES 06,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (1)(1), THANE, THANE

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. There is delay of 172 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee had filed application seeking condonation

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

RAJESH BABULAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

Sections 272A(1)(d) and 271AAC(1) of the Act. As the quantum appeal remains pending and is yet to be adjudicated, the penalty proceedings are deemed premature at this stage. It is observed that the assessee has duly explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we draw reference

RAJESH BABULAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

Sections 272A(1)(d) and 271AAC(1) of the Act. As the quantum appeal remains pending and is yet to be adjudicated, the penalty proceedings are deemed premature at this stage. It is observed that the assessee has duly explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we draw reference

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)

D E R Per Bench: 1. This is batch of 21 appeals pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 preferred by the Assessee against 21 separate orders, each dated 30/10/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]. Since the appeals involve

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)

D E R Per Bench: 1. This is batch of 21 appeals pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 preferred by the Assessee against 21 separate orders, each dated 30/10/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]. Since the appeals involve

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

D E R Per Bench: 1. This is batch of 21 appeals pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 preferred by the Assessee against 21 separate orders, each dated 30/10/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]. Since the appeals involve

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)

D E R Per Bench: 1. This is batch of 21 appeals pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 preferred by the Assessee against 21 separate orders, each dated 30/10/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]. Since the appeals involve

DILIPKUMAR PHOOLCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Dcit, Circle-20(1), A/1901-1902, Piramal Chambers, Vardhman Heights, Vs. Dr.Ss Rao Marg, Tb Kadam Marg, Parel, Byculla (East), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400027. Pan : Aarpj1996K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

272A(1) (d) read with Section 274 of the Act.” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) vide order dt. 22-09-2022, wherein as against the returned loss of Rs. 8,68,899/-, the income was determined

RATNARAVI METAL IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFIICER 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay and decided the appeal on its merits. The appeal was accordingly restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "69A", "271F", "272A(1)(d

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 ()

D E R PER : BEENA PILLAI (JM) Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 28/06/2019 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-59, Mumbai for Assessment Year 2013-14 on following grounds of appeal:- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the automated system has grossly erred in sending the intimations under Section

VIMAL PUKHRAJ JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrivimal Pukhraj Jain Income Tax Officer Ward 806, Dheeraj Enclave, Borivali East, Vs. 42(1)(5) Opp. Bhor Industries, Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 400066 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipj6511H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. Karuna Kurle Shirdhankar /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 14.02.2023 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –Nfac Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 50,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer By Invoking Provisions Of Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Non-Compliance Of The Notices.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Notice That There Is A Delay In Filling Appeal Of 807 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The P A G E | 2

section 272A(1)(d) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance of the notices.” 3. At the outset, it is notice that there is a delay in filling appeal of 807 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the P a g e | 2 ITA No. 4305/Mum/2025 Ay 2018-19 Vimal Pukhraj Jain inordinate

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

MOHAMMAD MOHSIN QURESHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi Ito Ward-42(2)(4) Room No. 375, Plot No. 2, Shashtri Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra. Nagar, Near Bus Depot, Bandra West, Maharashtra-400050. [Pan No. Bexpk0365Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 21.08.2024 Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

272A(1)(d). Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi 6. The appellant may add modify delete any grounds of appeal before the completion of hearing before the ITAT appeals.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 26.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,95,400/-. Case was selected

SMT REVATI NARAYAN JANGAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO-42(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

section (u/s.) 271F and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) for AY 2016-17. ITA Nos. 8111/Mum/2025 and 8112/Mum/2025 respectively arise out of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC (1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act for AY 2019-20. However, the basic common grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is against