ASIA INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

condoning the delay in filing an appeal against penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned , the learned CIT(A) can condone

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD, THANE

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

condoning the delay, we admit the cross objection for adjudication on merit. 6. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a co-operative bank registered with the Government of Maharashtra. As stated by the assessing officer, the assessee is engaged in banking operation as per framework of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India

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

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. LT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

u/s 144 of the 1.T Act involved in the case of appellant for assessment year 2009-10, cannot be entertained and hence this plea being not sustainable the delay cannot be condoned and hence is not condoned. Thus the plea taken to condone the delay, being totally unrelated, is not sustainable and accordingly is dismissed here with

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH TRADING CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-13, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

u/s 144 of the 1.T Act involved in the case of appellant for assessment year 2009-10, cannot be entertained and hence this plea being not sustainable the delay cannot be condoned and hence is not condoned. Thus the plea taken to condone the delay, being totally unrelated, is not sustainable and accordingly is dismissed here with

HEMCHANDRA MISTRY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assesses appeals for Assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri. Amit Shukla (Jm)

penalties of Rs. 13, 38,200/- and Rs. 10,000/- have been levied u/s 271(1) (c) and 271 (1)(b) of the act respectively, would wantonly file the appeals belatedly, thereby, jeopardizing his own case. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for condoning the delay

DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing in accurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR’s contentions are that the A.O has not accepted the facts of waiver of loan by the parent company and was added in the assessment order and the CIT(A) has confirmed M/s Anik Industires Ltd., Mumbai. the addition and on further appeal

EKTA SHAKTI DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 25(3) NEW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (6)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1762/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) बिधम/ M/S. Ekta Shakti Developers Dcit, Central Circle (6) (2) 19Th Floor, Air India 401, Hallmark Business Vs. Plaza, Near Gurunank Building, Mumbai-400021. Hospital, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafe9373L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mahaveer Jain (Ar) Revenue By: Mrs. Neelima V. Nadkarni (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2002-.03 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

condone the delay. At the very outset, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the penalty notice nowhere speaks about specific limb to levy the penalty because the particular charge was not tick off in the notice, therefore, in the said circumstances the penalty is not justifiable hence the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty order

SHREECHAND BUILDERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh.R. C. Sharma, Am& Hon‟Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm

penalty against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. First of all we are taking appeal filed in ITA No. 1984 & 1982/Mum/14 as the issues raised in these two appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this consolidated order. 4 I.T.A. No. 1982-1985/Mum/2014

ALCOM PRODUCTS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Alcon Products, The Cit (A)-1, Shop No. 36, Amrapali Shopping Room No. 29, A Wing, Arcade, Pokharan Road No. 2, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Road No. 16-Z, Thane - 400601 Wagle Industrial Estate, Pan: Aajfa6379H Thane - 400604

u/s 271 (1) (c).” 5. Since, there is a delay of 6 days in filing appeal, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the penalty

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed narrating reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was initially advised by the consultant not to prefer appeal against the order of the Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed narrating reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was initially advised by the consultant not to prefer appeal against the order of the Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed narrating reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was initially advised by the consultant not to prefer appeal against the order of the Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed narrating reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was initially advised by the consultant not to prefer appeal against the order of the Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271

CRYSTAL CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Crystal Construction, The Acit-21(1), 5Th Floor, Geetnajali Arcade, Pratyakshar Bhavan, Above Shamarao Vitthal Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex, Nehru Road, Ville Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400057 Pan: Aaefc0268N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2018

condone the delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal. We accordingly allowed the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to argue the appeal on merits. 8. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty u/s 271

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