M/S.SOCIAL EDUCATION & WELFARE ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-14(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10

271B of the I.T.Act 1961 for levying penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- is invalid and bad in law. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the Penalty Order without following the Principle of Natural justice. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SOCIAL EDUCATION AND WELFARE ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-14(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10

271B of the I.T.Act 1961 for levying penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- is invalid and bad in law. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the Penalty Order without following the Principle of Natural justice. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SOCIAL EDUCATION AND WELFARE ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-14(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10

271B of the I.T.Act 1961 for levying penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- is invalid and bad in law. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the Penalty Order without following the Principle of Natural justice. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

TECH PACIFIC INDIA LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT OSD -II CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh (Account Member ) & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.8794, 8795 & 8797/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09) Tech Pacific India Limited Dy. Commissioner Of (Now Known As Ingram Vs. Income-Tax, Osd Ii, Micro India Ltd.) Central Range -7, Gate No. 1A, Godrej Aayakar Bhavan, Industries Complex, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikroli Mumbai – 400 020 (East) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan No. Aabct1296R (Assessee ) (Revenue)

section 271(1)(c), 271AAA and 271B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the above Grounds of Appeal as and when advised.” 42. Draft assessment order under Sec. 153A/143(3) r.w.s 144C(1), dated 30.12.2010 was passed and the income of the assessee was proposed to be Tech Pacific India

SHEKHAR S. DADARKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, Commissioner was justified in invoking revision u/s 263. In Arvee International (supra), it is held that the orders passed on an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law or without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind or without making requisite

MS. KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

271B and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” ITA No. 3271/Mum/2024 (AY - 2012-13): Ground No 1: Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Order Passed Is Illegal Void-Ab- Initio (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming that

KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

271B and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” ITA No. 3271/Mum/2024 (AY - 2012-13): Ground No 1: Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Order Passed Is Illegal Void-Ab- Initio (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming that

KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

271B and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” ITA No. 3271/Mum/2024 (AY - 2012-13): Ground No 1: Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Order Passed Is Illegal Void-Ab- Initio (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming that

MS. KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

271B and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment\nand passing order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.”\nITA No. 3271/Mum/2024 (AY - 2012-13):\nGround No 1: Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Order Passed Is Illegal Void-Ab-\nInitio\n(a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre\n(NFAC) erred

HAFFKINE BIO PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATON LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7542/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

271B of the Act. 4. After considering the submission of assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation and sustained the findings of AO with regard to carry forward of business loss to the extent of Rs. 1.58 crores. With regard to initiation of penalty, assessee has not pressed this ground since penalty is not emanating

PUMPKIN PICTURES PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2,, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpumpkin Pictures Private Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle -2 Limited, B/1804, 6Th Floor, It Park, Road Interface Heights, Behind No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Infinity Mall, Mindspace, Thane (West) Malad (West), Mumbai – 400064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp0581M Appellant .. Respondent

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. The said estimated income of Rs.50,94,956/- has to be deleted. 5. The Appellant Company craves, leave to add, amend or alter the Grounds of this Appeal either at the time of hearing of the Appeal or at any time before that.” 2. Fact in brief is that assessee is a company

HEMANT V.PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Hemant V. Parikh Asst. Cit, Central Circle 3(2) 703, 704, Krushal Tower, Mumbai-400 021 Above Shoppers Stop, G M Road, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400 089

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act and by upholding the AO's order in this matter. 3 Hemant V. Parikh vs. Asst. CIT 13) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting the fresh claim of bad debts of Rs. 83,98,249/- by upholding

M/S HYDRO AIR RECTONICS (PCD) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 2 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Hydro Air Tectonics (Pcd) Dcit, Central Circle 2(1) Limited, 301/302, Belapur Vs. 8Th Floor, Room No. 804, Old Concorde Premises Chs, Cgo Building, Pratishtha Plot No. 66A, Sector- 44, Behind Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vijaya Bank, Cbd, Belapur, Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Pan No. Aaach9686C (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2021

271B of The Income tax Act, 1961 while the appellant has got its accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and Jaw on the subject the Learned CIT (A) erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case