RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.11.2024. A penalty of Rs. 24,11,180/- was imposed by the Ld. AO vide order dated 02.03.2022 in respect of the undisclosed notional income from house property

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.11.2024. A penalty of Rs. 24,11,180/- was imposed by the Ld. AO vide order dated 02.03.2022 in respect of the undisclosed notional income from house property

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTERAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

house property\nvide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A dated 26.10.2021. Thereafter, the Ld. AO\nissued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain as to why penalty should\nnot be levied u/s 271

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

house property\nvide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A dated 26.10.2021. Thereafter, the Ld. AO\nPage | 10\nITA No. 435 to 439/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 & 16-17\nMohan Thakurdas Gurnani\nissued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain as to why penalty should\nnot be levied u/s 271

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

house property\nvide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A dated 26.10.2021. Thereafter, the Ld. AO\nPage | 10\nITA No. 435 to 439/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 & 16-17\nMohan Thakurdas Gurnani\nissued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain as to why penalty should\nnot be levied u/s 271

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTERAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

house property\nvide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A dated 26.10.2021. Thereafter, the Ld. AO\nCOME TAX APPELLATE TRUN\nPage 11\nITA No. 435 to 439/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 & 16-17\nMohan Thakurdas Gurnani\nissued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain as to why penalty should\nnot be levied u/s 271

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

house property’ in respect of unsold property’ in respect of unsold flats,the Assessing Officer was he Assessing Officer was required to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and non-initiation of penalty of penalty has rendered the assessment order

UNICORN INFOSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the regular ground raised by the

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should have not been levied by the Id. AO. During the assessment proceedings, the Id. AO, after considering the AO. During the assessment proceedings, the Id. AO, after considering the AO. During the assessment proceedings, the Id. AO, after considering the facts of the case made addition of facts of the case made addition

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 ()

property and her case was scrutinised in detail and there was addition of Rs.1,16,90,000/-. Which clearly indicates that the appellant was liable to file income tax return u/s 139(1) but the same was not done. Further, in absence of any justification /s 274, the penalty levied is fund to be correct and being upheld.]” Aggrieved

ITO-23(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CHETAK COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act, without considering fact that section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-op Housing Society Act, defines that the society is a legal person and can hold property

CHETAK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act, without considering fact that section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-op Housing Society Act, defines that the society is a legal person and can hold property

ROHIT CHATTERJI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-35(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house property respectively. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) is being income. 4. The details filed during the course of scrutiny

ROHIT CHATTERJI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 35(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house property respectively. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) is being income. 4. The details filed during the course of scrutiny

HEMANT SHRIDHAR PHATAK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(5) PRESENTLY-ITO-42(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since both the appeals germinate from same set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. ITA NO.267/MUM/2022-A.Y. 2013-14: 2. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee in its return of income claimed exemption

HEMANT SHRIDHAR PHATAK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(5) PRESENTLY-ITO-42(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since both the appeals germinate from same set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. ITA NO.267/MUM/2022-A.Y. 2013-14: 2. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee in its return of income claimed exemption

VIJAY MORU MHATRE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THANE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Moru Mhatre, Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Plot No. 08, 1St Floor 6Th Floor Room No. 10, Mcch Society, Panvel Road No. 16-Z, Ashar It Maharashtra – 410206 Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpm8104Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Khushiram Jadhawani Respondent By : Usha Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

penalty on a sum of Rs. 2,90,937/- u/s 271 (1)(c) on wrong presumption of facts and incorrect comparison of income declared u/s.139(1) vis-a-vis 153A. Appellant wish to draw attention to ITR- 1 wherein income from House property

M/S. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

property was not used for earning taxable income. Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the penalty without considering Appellant's submission that said unit earned taxable income, just following findings of assessment order and without considering all the relevant facts were disclosed. 4. Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for filling inaccurate particulars without considering that Notice

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