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. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

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

273B of the Act and hence the transactions passed through journal entries though would be hit by the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act, since reasonable cause is established in the instant case, the assessee company would get immunity from levy of penalty thereon. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result

INDU BISHT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

273B of Income tax act which clearly states that no penalty should be levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure.\n4. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in spite of specific request made by the assessee vide its submissions dated 10th December 2024 ignoring

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 ()

273B of Income tax act which clearly states that no penalty should be levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure. 4. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in spite of specific request made by the assessee vide its submissions dated 10th December 2024 ignoring

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

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 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

RAMA SIVARAMAN,MUMBAI vs. AO WARD 3(2) , THANE

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

house property was brought to the notice of the AO in the reply to the show cause notice and the return of income of the Assessee’s husband was submitted during the course of the Assessment. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not giving an opportunity to the Assessee to file the sale deed. 5. The Learned

RAMA SIVARAMAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

house property was brought to the notice of the AO in the reply to the show cause notice and the return of income of the Assessee’s husband was submitted during the course of the Assessment. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not giving an opportunity to the Assessee to file the sale deed. 5. The Learned

REKHA MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

house property’ from rent of Rs.26,00,000/- received from tenant SVIL Mines Ltd in respect of property situated at D-10, Ring Road, Rajouri 3 Mrs. Rekha Maheshwari Garden, New Delhi. The assessee had claimed credit of TDS of Rs.2,60,000/- @ 10% which was deducted on rent u/s.194I of the Act by the tenant having TAN DELS25756D. Since

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

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

properties. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai under the search and seizure action was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on the Lodha Group on 10.01.2011 and as a result of undisclosed transactions by the group a disclosure of income to the tune of Rs.200 Cr was made by the group

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

House Properties, Proprietary Business and other sources. 2. The Return of Income was filed on 10th September 2016 declaring Total Income Rs.24,62,230/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI A of Rs. 1,60, 148/-. 3. The return for A.Y 2016-17 was selected for reopening of assessment u/s 148 vide Notice dtd. 31-Mar-2021. 4. Your Appellant

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

273B of the Act, penalty under section 271G of the Act can be imposed only if default of the Appellant is held to be proved without reasonable cause.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of first moving consumer goods in the business segment of health care and feminine care and licensed manufacturer

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

273B of the Act, penalty under section 271G of the Act can be imposed only if default of the Appellant is held to be proved without reasonable cause.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of first moving consumer goods in the business segment of health care and feminine care and licensed manufacturer

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

Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, on 'reasonable cause' being shown, no penalty shall be imposable. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, in Shri Rajkumar S. Agarwal; AY 2013-14 the reply furnished before the Assessing Officer, the assessee clearly mentioned that her father- in-law - M.Kathirvel sent the amount of Rs.20

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