MESSE FRANKFURT TRADE FAIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

depreciation on intangible assets and sustained only the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of Rs. 9,90,000/-, the assessee, considering the quantum of tax involved and with a view to avoid protracted and costly litigation, consciously chose not to pursue further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It is further stated that subsequently penalty proceedings under section 270A

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN DIAMOND COMPANY PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 166/Mum/2024 is dismissed

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

9) of the Act in order to treat the same as under-reporting as a consequence of mis-reporting. 5.5. Hence, it is pertinent to refer to sub section (2) of section 270A of the Act which mentions the scenarios under which a person shall be considered to have under- reporting of income; the relevant extract of the same

NARROTAM MORARJEE INSTITUTE OF SHIPPING,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Narrotam Morarjee Institute Of National Faceless Shipping, Mumbai Assessment Appeal Centre 76 – Jolly Maker, Chambers – 2, (Nfac) Office Of The Vs. Vivek Shah, Mumbai, Nariman Commissioner Of Income Point S.O.-400021 Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A) Delhi (Pan : Aaatn0042R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025- 26/1078465227(1) Dated 14.07.2025 Passed Against The Penalty Order U/S. 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi ["The Cit (A)") U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act For Short Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Passed

section 270A(9) are met. It is also admitted position that assessee is not in appeal on the addition/disallowance made by the ld. AO towards the unutilized amount u/s 11(3). Assessee has duly discharged its tax liability on the addition/disallowances so made and is contesting only on the penalty so imposed in this regard. We also note that though

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

depreciation In ROI filed u/s 153A Rs. 12,28,685/- 5.Disallowance interest U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 30,88,040/- Rs. 73,82,883/- The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The rest additions are the surviving components. The Ld. AR contended that penalty cannot be sustained

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

depreciation In ROI filed u/s 153A Rs. 12,28,685/- 5.Disallowance interest U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 30,88,040/- Rs. 73,82,883/- The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The rest additions are the surviving components. The Ld. AR contended that penalty cannot be sustained

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

depreciation In ROI filed u/s 153A Rs. 12,28,685/- 5.Disallowance interest U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 30,88,040/- Rs. 73,82,883/- The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The rest additions are the surviving components. The Ld. AR contended that penalty cannot be sustained

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

depreciation In ROI filed u/s 153A Rs. 12,28,685/- 5.Disallowance interest U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 30,88,040/- Rs. 73,82,883/- The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The rest additions are the surviving components. The Ld. AR contended that penalty cannot be sustained

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

depreciation In ROI filed u/s 153A Rs. 12,28,685/- 5.Disallowance interest U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 30,88,040/- Rs. 73,82,883/- The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The rest additions are the surviving components. The Ld. AR contended that penalty cannot be sustained

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

depreciation In ROI filed u/s 153A Rs. 12,28,685/- 5.Disallowance interest U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 30,88,040/- Rs. 73,82,883/- The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The rest additions are the surviving components. The Ld. AR contended that penalty cannot be sustained

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

depreciation In ROI filed u/s 153A Rs. 12,28,685/- 5.Disallowance interest U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 30,88,040/- Rs. 73,82,883/- The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The rest additions are the surviving components. The Ld. AR contended that penalty cannot be sustained

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONA TAXATION)-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

270A of the Act.\nEach of the grounds of appeal referred above is separate and may kindly be\nconsidered independent of each other.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any\nor all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of the\nappeal, so as to enable

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

9: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A\nof the Act.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has\nerred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A of the\nAct for under-reporting of income.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend

ANSHUL SPECIALTY MOLECULES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaranshul Speciality Dcit Circle Molecules Private 1(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhawani, Flexcel Park, „C‟ Wing, S.V. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Nr. 24 Karat Multiplex, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai- 400102 Pan/Gir No. Aabca4003H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri H. N. Motiwala, Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

9,79,55,271/-, representing excess of consideration over the value of assets and liabilities taken over. The assessee claimed depreciation at 12.5%, amounting to Rs. 1,22,44,409/-, under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer examined the claim of depreciation on goodwill and issued notices under section 142(1) calling upon the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 515 & 516/Mum/2025 filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

9(3), in ITA 5 ITA 515 and 516/Mum/2025 Jyothy Labs Limited NO.2231/Mum/2011, date of order 31/05/2011. The relevant para 6 is extracted below:- “6. Under these circumstances, and in the light of the above observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that making a claim of depreciation in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 515 & 516/Mum/2025 filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

9(3), in ITA 5 ITA 515 and 516/Mum/2025 Jyothy Labs Limited NO.2231/Mum/2011, date of order 31/05/2011. The relevant para 6 is extracted below:- “6. Under these circumstances, and in the light of the above observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that making a claim of depreciation in respect

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)

270A, section 271, section 271A,section 271J or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January

ASMEETA INFRATECH LIMITED,BHIWANDI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KALYAN, KALYAN

section 270A penalty should\nnot be levied.\n5.1 The ld.AR has submitted that during the year, the assessee\ncompany had Other income by way of interest on loans, interest on\nmargin money and Interest on FD as per Note 18 of final accounts as\nunder:\nS.No Particulars\nAmount\n1.\nInterest on loans\n4,26,625\n2.\nInterest on FD made

DCIT 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KILITCH HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

9) of section 270A for the said previous year. Explanation. —For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value— (i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed; or (ii) as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, based