SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) on the ground of delay without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal and hence the delay in filing appeal before the NFAC be condoned

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) on the ground of delay without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal and hence the delay in filing appeal before the NFAC be condoned

FAREES AHMED KHALIL AHMED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising from the very same quantum proceedings also, there Act’) arising from the very same quantum proceedings also Act’) arising from the very same quantum proceedings also was a delay

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 30,65,075/-. 17. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 03.12.2024, upheld the penalty levied by the ld. AO. 18. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order

ACIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S TORANE ISPAT UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhriacit-15(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Torane Ispat Udyog Room No. 480, Forth Floor, Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 49, Ground Floor, Cinewonder Mumbai-400020. Mall, Ghodbunder Road, Thane West, Mumbai-400607. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aacct9196K Appellant .. Respondent

delay in filing of appeal was bonafide and is, therefore, being condoned. 4. The appeal has been filed against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty u/s. 271

ASCOT REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1-, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Delay condoned. ITA No. 4644& 4643/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18) Ascot Realty Pvt. Ltd. 3. As the facts are identical in both these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4644/Mum/2024, (A.Y. 2016-17) as a lead case. ITA No. 4644/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal along

ASCOT REALTY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Delay condoned. ITA No. 4644& 4643/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18) Ascot Realty Pvt. Ltd. 3. As the facts are identical in both these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4644/Mum/2024, (A.Y. 2016-17) as a lead case. ITA No. 4644/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal along

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), MUMBAI, INCOMETAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL COMMODITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of our decision above in the additional ground, the other grounds have become academic, hence, do not require adjudication. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above. ITA No. 1340/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) -Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 2635/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21)- Revenue’s appeal

NATIONAL COMMODITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of our decision above in the additional ground, the other grounds have become academic, hence, do not require adjudication. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above. ITA No. 1340/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) -Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 2635/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21)- Revenue’s appeal

NATIONAL COMMODITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANG -7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of our decision above in the additional ground, the other grounds have become academic, hence, do not require adjudication. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above. ITA No. 1340/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) -Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 2635/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21)- Revenue’s appeal

ANKITA SINGH,NALSAROVAR, ADODARA, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(1), BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ankita Singh, Ito, Ward 42(2)(1), 9, Bellevue Vierra, Adroda Kautilya Bhawan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. Gaon, Bavla, Nalsarovar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block, Bkc Adroda B.O., Adroda, Bandra Kurla Complex, Ahmedabad-382220. Bandra East, Mumbai-450001. Pan No. Biaps 8725 F Appellant Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated. wrongly initiated. 2. Briefly stated, facts

K P SANGHVI & SONS LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm K P Sanghvi & Sons Llp Asst. Cit-19(2) 12A-03, Crescenzo, C-38/39, Mumbai Vs. G – Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 8390 F (Assessee) (Respondent) :

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,20,540/-. 3. The appeal is filed with a delay of 20 days where the assessee has sought for condoning

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

condonation of delay rejected by the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed y the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed. It is noticed that the AO is noticed that the AO passed order of penalty u/s 271

MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

condonation of delay rejected by the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed y the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed. It is noticed that the AO is noticed that the AO passed order of penalty u/s 271

JANSEVA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSHTHA MARYADIT,MAHIM vs. ITO 22(1)(6), LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were passed against the co-operative society dated 29.09.2014 levying a penalty of Rs. 22,68,409/- and Rs. 8,89,073/- respectively, against which appeals were preferred before CIT (Appeals). 3. Subsequently, the Co-operative society received an order of CIT (Appeals) - 33 for AY 2010-11 dated

LATA PRAKASH MARADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee filed a return submission dated 26.1 assessee filed a return submission dated 26.10.2021. 0.2021. Thereafter, Lata Prakash Maradia 4 the matter of levying penalty was assigned to the the matter of levying penalty was assigned to the Faceless P Faceless Penalty unit and accordingly unit

CONWOOD CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs 4,00,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.03.2022, despite the fact that the appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of its income nor concealed its particulars of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case

ALOK JOSHI,UTTRAKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s. 271(1)(b), vide order dated 22.06.2011. In\nthe said penalty proceedings, notices were issued by the ld. Assessing\nOfficer, which could not be attended by the assessee owing to he and\nhis family members not available in India. Thus, penalty of\nRs.50,000/- (10,000 X 5) was imposed.\n4. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before