THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: the Assessing Officer to set out his defence against levy of penalty?." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a public Limited company engaged, inter alia, in manufactured and sale of cement, filed original return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–2012 on 30/11/2011. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 27/11/2012, which was selected for regular scrutiny.

u/s. 271(1)(c) of Act ignoring the fact that the assessee was fully aware of his default regarding furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as is clearly mentioned in order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 and the assessee was offered adequate opportunity before the Assessing Officer to set out his defence against levy of penalty?.” 3. The relevant

LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275, pre supposes the existence of assessment proceedings / revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these

JAGDISHCHANDRA PRAHLADDAS PASARI,THANE vs. ITO WARD 14, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountantjagdishchandra Prahaladdas Pasari 503/D, Santoor Apts., Pokhran Road No. 2, Thane West, Thane Maharashtra – 400 601 Pan No.: Aagpp0103M ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 14, 6Th Floor, Aksar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Nehru Nagar, Wagle Estate, Thane (W), Maharashtra – 400 604 ..... Respondent

revised on 7.11.1997 to Rs. 1,26,900/-. Thereafter, the case the return was processed u/s. 143 (1) of the Act. The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny under CASS and the scrutiny assessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act were completed on 18.02.2000 whereby the total income of the Assessee was held

MAHANSARIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, MUMBAI-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

263. 4. The PCIT failed to appreciate that one possible view taken by the AO could not be substituted by another alternative possible view of the PCIT in revision proceedings. 5. The PCIT erred in not appreciating the fact that issue relating to allowability of deduction under section 80G in respect of expenditure incurred towards CSR stands decided in favour

FORTUNE CARS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal field by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2018-19 Fortune Cars Pvt. Ltd., D-232, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Uran Phata, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706. Pan:Aaacf-1857-F - Appellant

revision proceeding u/s 263 of the Act by Ld PCIT and the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. The assessee

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. Year 2017-18dated 30.03.2022. From the facts of the case, it is ascertained that you had not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. The return was filed only after the notice u/s.148 was issued. In response thereto, you filed

IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,MUMBAI, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-5, AYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Penalty or Fine for Violation of any Law\n5. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide\norder dt. 30/04/2021. Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by the\nprovisions of Section 263 of the Act, the PCIT-5, Mumbai, issued the\nfollowing show cause notice:-\n***This space has been left blank intentionally (P.T.O)***\nआयकर

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 6(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LTD , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, 6(1)(1) Vs. M/S Century Textiles Room No. 502, 5Th & Industrials Ltd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Century Mk Road, Bhavan, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Beasant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2659Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jogendra Singh.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Chaitanya D. Joshi.Ar Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Disallowance of Excess Claim u/s. 80IA: Rs. 4,07,71,917/-. 5. Further the AO has denied the claim of depreciation, as the assessee has not claimed in the return of income filed. Finally the AO has computed the total

VAIBHAV BHARGAVA,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. Year 2017-18 dated 30.03.2022. From the facts of the case, it is ascertained that you had not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017- 18. The return was filed only after the notice u/s.148 was issued. In response thereto, you filed

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

revision proceedings passed by the Ld. PCIT, The relevant finding of the\nTribunal (supra) is reproduced as under:\nHeard both the sides and perused the material on record. Assessment in the\ncase of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 144C(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.06.2017. The ld. Pr.CIT has held

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

revision proceedings passed by the Ld. PCIT, The relevant finding of the\nTribunal (supra) is reproduced as under:\nHeard both the sides and perused the material on record. Assessment in the\ncase of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 144C(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.06.2017. The ld. Pr.CIT has held

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

revision proceedings passed by the Ld. PCIT, The relevant finding of the\nTribunal (supra) is reproduced as under:\nHeard both the sides and perused the material on record. Assessment in the\ncase of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 144C(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.06.2017. The ld. Pr.CIT has held

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

revision proceedings passed by the Ld. PCIT, The relevant finding of the\nTribunal (supra) is reproduced as under:\nHeard both the sides and perused the material on record. Assessment in the\ncase of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s 144C(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.06.2017. The ld. Pr.CIT has held

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Penalty provision under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 8. On perusal of the grounds, it is noticed that ground no. 2, 3 & 4 pertains to considering the date of acquisition

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act; The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of cross objections without prejudice to each other and craves, leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objections. 2(a). The assessee has raised the Additional Grounds Of Appeal as under

ETERNITY JEWELS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPESL-NFAC DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

revision was directed Thus, the order passed on misinterpretation of the facts of the case and change of opinion is erroneous /unjust/ unreasonable and thus the order passed deserves to be quashed 3. In law and as per the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action