DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

PREMJI BHURLAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RANG 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

271D, levied a penalty of Rs. 64,25,000/- under such section. 11. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said penalty being imposed by the Assessing Officer vide penalty order dated 26.09.2022 by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. 12. Before the Ld. Commissioner the Assessee made following submissions: 3. Submission of the Appellant: The submission made

SAMEER NOORULLAH KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Sameer Noorullah Khan Cit (A)-32 K Raheja Prime Kautilya Bhavan, Office No.9, 9 Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Behind Times Square Bldg, Room No.945, Bkc, Vs. Sag Baug Road, Marol Naka, Bandra (E) Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 50 Mumbai-400 059 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alrpk 5260 A Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022

housing loan and financial crisis. The learned CIT (A) issued several notice to the assessee but same remained un-complied with and therefore, on the merits found that there is no need to interfere with the levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied of ₹18 lacs under Section 271D of the Act was confirmed

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB

RAJKUMAR S AGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT-20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4251/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Shri Rajkumar S Agarwal The Jt. Commissioner Of 209, Raiker Chamber, Bks Devsai Income Tax Marg, Govandi East, Mumbai फनाभ/ Circle-20(3) 4T H 411, Floor, Piramal Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aidpa3783B अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Vidhyadhar V, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2021

271D of the Act for violation of provision of Section 269SS in accepting cash of ₹ 3 lacs from mother as a loan. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 6. We noted that the assessee has received cash loan from mother of the assessee namely Mrs. Krishna Agarwal. It was claimed by the assessee that this is a temporary

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

HOUSES PVT LTD 140000 37 LODHA FOREMOST CONSTRUCTION P LTD 59000 38 LODHA FOUNDATION DEV. & BUILDERS P LTD 58000 39 LODHA HOUSE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD 60000 40 LODHA IDEAL BUILDERS PVT LTD 59000 41 LODHA INFRABUILD & FARMS PVT LTD 72000 42 LODHA INFRACON PVT LTD 50000 43 LODHA INFRACREATIONS & FARMS P LTD 72000 44 LODHA INFRADEVELOPERS

THE THANE ZILLA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH SAHAKARI PATPEDHI,THANE vs. ACIT PALGHAR CIR, PALGHAR, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1249/Mum/2017,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1250/Mum/2017,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.: 2012-13 वष" The Thane Zilla Madhyamik Shikshak Acit Palghar Circle Sangh Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Palghar. At.Saphale Post,Umbarpada, Taluka Vs. Palghar, Dist. Thane-401 102. Pan:Aaaat 9514 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. A.K. Nayak-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah . सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 02.01.2017 Of The Cit(A)- 3,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Ay.S.It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members.The Details Of Dates Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessment Etc. Can Be Summarised As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Assessment Date Assessed Income 2008-09 29.09.2008 Nil 04.12.2015 Rs.97,80P,811/- 2012-13 28.09.2012 Nil 20.03.2015 Rs.1,57,72,930/-

271D the Act the then AR had made erroneous interpretation, that the assessee was not a cooperative bank in the term of section 80P (4) of the Act. The FAA directed the AO to file a remand report after going through the affidavit of 1249-50/M/17(08-09&12-13) The Thane zilla Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh the chairman

BHALCHANDRA P. DALVI,GHAHTKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 27 (1) (2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhalchandra P. Dalvi, Vs. Ito-Ward 27(1)(2), 1, Hemalaya Society, It-Office, Vashi Milind Nagar, Near Railway Station Sungrace English Building, School,Ghatkopar(W), Navimumbai-400705. Mumbai-400084. Pan/Gir No. : Aampd3092P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & Shri B.R.Vyas.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Ashokkumarambastha,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec271D & U/Sec250 Of The Act. 1. The Learned Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax 27(1) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271D Amounting To Rupees 24,50,000/- Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand As Well As Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Confirming The Same. Bhalachandra P. Dalvi.Mumbai. 2.1 The Appellant Has Received Rupees 18,50,000/- Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Cash Against Sale Of Flat & Rs.6,00,000/- Amount Raised From Lenders Which Amount Was Less Than Rupees Twenty Thousand Out Of Rupees Six Lakhs, Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Is Already Taxed As Income & Balance Loans Are Accepted As Genuine & Each Loans Less Than Rs.20,000/- Considering Above Facts & Circumstances No Penalty U/S 271D Can Be Levied & Same Be Deleted.

section 147 order dated 22nd March, 2016 3. The Learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in dismissing appeal without considering the request for adjournment as well as without giving proper opportunities and without considering the finding given in the assessment order and considering all these circumstances penalty levied Rs. 24,50,000/- u/s 271D be deleted. 2. The brief facts

DY CIT -CC-4(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RESONANT REALTORS PROJECTS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.820 & 819/Mum/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) बनाम/ Dcit-Cc-4(3) M/S. Resonant Realtors Air India Bldg Room Projects Pvt. Vs. No.1921, Nariman Point, Ltd.(Erstwhile M/S. Mumbai-400021. Omkar Realtors Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Omkar House Off Eastern Express Highway, Opp. Sion Chunnabhatti Signal, Sion (E), Mumbai- 400022. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacco0277C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Akshay Jain/Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13 /02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 16.02.2021 For Ay. 2015-16 & Ay. 2016-17 Respectively.

House 0.08 20 Sagar Maniar 0.65 42 Kesha P. Jhaveri 0.27 21 Abdul Munaf Khaan 1 43 Goving Singh Mehta 0.10 22 Nilesh Gore 0.15 Total 81.30 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Resonant Realtors Pvt Ltd The flat details as well as the project details will be submitted in 15 days time….. Q.39 I am showing you the statement

DY CIT -CC-4(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RESONANT REALTORS PROJECTS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.820 & 819/Mum/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) बनाम/ Dcit-Cc-4(3) M/S. Resonant Realtors Air India Bldg Room Projects Pvt. Vs. No.1921, Nariman Point, Ltd.(Erstwhile M/S. Mumbai-400021. Omkar Realtors Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Omkar House Off Eastern Express Highway, Opp. Sion Chunnabhatti Signal, Sion (E), Mumbai- 400022. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacco0277C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Akshay Jain/Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13 /02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 16.02.2021 For Ay. 2015-16 & Ay. 2016-17 Respectively.

House 0.08 20 Sagar Maniar 0.65 42 Kesha P. Jhaveri 0.27 21 Abdul Munaf Khaan 1 43 Goving Singh Mehta 0.10 22 Nilesh Gore 0.15 Total 81.30 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Resonant Realtors Pvt Ltd The flat details as well as the project details will be submitted in 15 days time….. Q.39 I am showing you the statement

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHANTINATH DESIGNER CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

271D of the income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries is not in doubt. " 2. "On the fat-&ant! in the circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A)held that the assessee had contravened the provision of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. 1961, ought

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case 3.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain where

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case 3.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain where

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROHAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 132(4A) about the notings. Additions were deleted by CIT(A) and ITAT. Held that, Tribunal had recorded a finding that, there was no corroborative or direct evidence to presume that notings and jottings had materialised into transactions diving rise to income not disclosed in the books. There was no perversity in Tribunal's findings. CIT V. D.K.Gupta

ROHAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 132(4A) about the notings. Additions were deleted by CIT(A) and ITAT. Held that, Tribunal had recorded a finding that, there was no corroborative or direct evidence to presume that notings and jottings had materialised into transactions diving rise to income not disclosed in the books. There was no perversity in Tribunal's findings. CIT V. D.K.Gupta