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

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

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

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee

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)

272A; or (d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

DILIPKUMAR PHOOLCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Dcit, Circle-20(1), A/1901-1902, Piramal Chambers, Vardhman Heights, Vs. Dr.Ss Rao Marg, Tb Kadam Marg, Parel, Byculla (East), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400027. Pan : Aarpj1996K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

house property as closing stock; 3 12. Erred in upholding the order of the learned AG wherein, the learned AO has levied interest under Section 234A and Section 234B of the Act; and 13. Erred in upholding the order of the learned AO wherein, the learned AO has initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A and Section 272A

MOHAMMAD MOHSIN QURESHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi Ito Ward-42(2)(4) Room No. 375, Plot No. 2, Shashtri Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra. Nagar, Near Bus Depot, Bandra West, Maharashtra-400050. [Pan No. Bexpk0365Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 21.08.2024 Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

272A(1)(d). Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi 6. The appellant may add modify delete any grounds of appeal before the completion of hearing before the ITAT appeals.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 26.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,95,400/-. Case was selected

NITIN NARNHERAM PATEL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnitin Narbheram Patel Flat No.1702/1802, Wing-F, Pirojshah Nagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (E) Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aajpp4339A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac Mumbai- ..... Respondent

272A and 131 of the fact to verify the genuineness of the advance received from Mr Ranchod J kalia. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,74,000/- amount received from Mr Ranchod J Kalia merely on the ground that assesseefailed to produce any evidence. 10. Your Appellant craves, leave to amend alter