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

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

house property. 7. The Ld. AO erred in initiating notice of penalty u/s 274 read with section 271 and 271F

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

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 or sub-section

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

house property’, in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly , in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 90 Taxman 41(SC), explanation 2 added to section 40 of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and , therefore , retrospective.(Reference

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

house property has been declared/estimated by the AO. 9. What about the sundry debtors, creditors and other assets held by the firm is not clear. Further, it is also noted that you have not disclosed all the material facts necessary for the assessment. You have failed to report his income as per the Income

CHANDRIKA TAPURIAH, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

271F for non-filing of returns u/s. 153A on record, as in the case of the assessee’s husband, Kashinath Tapuriah (KT), the same stands levied, for all the relevant years, vide order/s dated 05/3/2008, which appears to have not been contested, attaining finality. In fact, admittedly no return was filed for A.Y. 2004-05 (APB 10, page 1823), while

SHAKIL AHMED HAFIZUDDIN,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

House Property from the accumulated salary income earned during his employment out of India and transfer such fund to his NRE account to make payment for the purchase of immovable property. 4. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld Assessing officer erred in initiating penalty u/s 271F

MILLENNIUM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmillennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-3, Ground Floor, Ceejay House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcm6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6th floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AABCM6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. AR Department Represented by : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. DR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement

INDU BISHT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

section 139. 5 ITA No.644&645/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Indu Bisht 5.4 During the appellate proceedings as well, the appellant did not file any justified return of income. 5.5 On merits of the case, there is no denial of the fact that the appellant had purchased property and her case was scrutinised in detail and there was addition of Rs.1

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

271F of the Act (for A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2006-07), since confirmed by the Tribunal (in ITA Nos. 2919- 2929/Mum/2009 dated 16.4.2010/APB-9, pgs. 1771-1773), and which order stands admittedly accepted by the assessee. For A.Y. 2007-08, admittedly no original return u/s. 139 was filed (APB 10, pg. 1781). The question of the assessee requesting

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

271F of the Act (for A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2006-07), since confirmed by the Tribunal (in ITA Nos. 2919- 2929/Mum/2009 dated 16.4.2010/APB-9, pgs. 1771-1773), and which order stands admittedly accepted by the assessee. For A.Y. 2007-08, admittedly no original return u/s. 139 was filed (APB 10, pg. 1781). The question of the assessee requesting

INDU BISHT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 139.\n5.4 During the appellate proceedings as well, the appellant did not file any justified return of income.\n5.5 On merits of the case, there is no denial of the fact that the appellant had purchased property and her case was scrutinised in detail and there was addition of Rs.1,16,90,000/-. Which clearly indicates that the appellant