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

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

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

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