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) ..

c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A of the Act. What is relevant for adjudication before us is section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers

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(2)(c

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 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

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

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

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

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

SANJAY K. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-19(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rehman & Shri Ravish Soodsanjay K. Shah, Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 31, Jay Bhavani Society, Range 19(2), 3 Ridge Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 006

delay of 46 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee merits to be condoned. 7. We shall now advert to the merits of the case. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that involving exactly identical facts and circumstances penalty under Sec. 272A(2)(c) was imposed in the case of the father of the assessee

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

delay was computed in a reasonable and prudent manner based on past experience of the company and the company has a policy to write back the unused amounts and offer the same for taxation on expiry of the relevant period for claim of damages and there is no leakage of revenue as the company is being taxed at a flat

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

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)

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

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

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

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

THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIR. OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPITION)-RG.-2, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm)

condone the delay in filing the appeal 4. The issue is in this appeal pertain to levy of penalty u/s. 272A(2)(e) for the following amounts for AY 2006-07,2007-08,2008-09,2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12. Sr.No. Assessment Year Penalty (Amount Rs.) 1 2006-07 1,06,000/- 2

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