SHREE YADVESH TRANSPORT CO . PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 115JB and therefore, the same should be deleted 4. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or 3 ITA No.6877/mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 Shree Yadvesh Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidences, documents and papers

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

penalty of Rs. 305,49,63,285/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the assessee-bank" 2 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in overlooking the specific amendment brought

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

THE DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRANSLANDS INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Translands Income-Tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. Jn-3-14-5, Asshirwad Chs, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent

271 D, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Deposits - Mode of taking/ accepting - Assessment year 1992-93- Whether where there was no actual receipt or money by assessee-company and amounts were credited by journal entries on account of payments made by its sister concern for and on behalf of assessee-company, Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that

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

115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 PAN – AAAFG1872G ……………. Appellant v/s PCIT, Mumbai Old – ACIT, Circle – 22(1), Piramal Chamber Parel, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400050, Maharashtra Assessee by : Share Hari Raheja Revenue by : Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR, Dr. Kishore Dhule-CIT DR Date of Hearing – 24/01/2025 Date of Order – 12/03/2025

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 32(1) MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BKC vs. ARVIND SHANTILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

115/- treating the profit earned from the treating the profit earned from the Future & Options transaction as fictitious profit on account of client ransaction as fictitious profit on account of client ransaction as fictitious profit on account of client code modification and assessed the same as unexplained cash code modification and assessed the same as unexplained cash code modification

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BKC vs. ARVIND SHANTILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

115/- treating the profit earned from the treating the profit earned from the Future & Options transaction as fictitious profit on account of client ransaction as fictitious profit on account of client ransaction as fictitious profit on account of client code modification and assessed the same as unexplained cash code modification and assessed the same as unexplained cash code modification

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue.\nAccordingly, the same is quashed. As a result, grounds raised by the assessee\nin its appeal are allowed.\n50. In the result, the appeal by the assessee, being ITA No.\n5346/Mum/2018, is allowed.\nITA No. 5664/Mum./2017\nAssessee's appeal – A.Υ. 2014-15\n51. The first

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue.\nAccordingly, the same is quashed. As a result, grounds raised by the assessee\nin its appeal are allowed.\n50. In the result, the appeal by the assessee, being ITA No.\n5346/Mum/2018, is allowed.\nITA No. 5664/Mum./2017\nAssessee's appeal – A.Υ. 2014-15\n51. The first

JT. CIT (OSD) -2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue.\nAccordingly, the same is quashed. As a result, grounds raised by the assessee\nin its appeal are allowed.\n\n50. In the result, the appeal by the assessee, being ITA No.\n5346/Mum/2018, is allowed.\n\nITA No. 5664/Mum./2017\nAssessee's appeal

EBRAHIM ESSA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Smt Renu Jauhri (Am) I.T.A. No. 1187/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Ebrahim Essa Vs. Ito-9(2)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, 115 Dathawala Wstate, Mumbai-400020. Sv Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400102. Pan : Aacce4720E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mani Jain Department By Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2024 O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri (Am) :-

115 Dathawala Wstate, Mumbai-400020. SV Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400102. PAN : AACCE4720E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mani Jain Department by Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 24.07.2024 O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23-01-2024 passed

DCIT CIR. 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue.\nAccordingly, the same is quashed. As a result, grounds raised by the assessee\nin its appeal are allowed.\n44. In the result, the appeal by the assessee, being ITA No.\n5346/Mum/2018, is allowed.\nITA No. 5664/Mum./2017\nAssessee's appeal – A.Υ. 2014-15\n45. The first

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

271(1)(c)\nAY 2017-18\nu/s 271AAB\nAY 2018-19\nu/s 271AAB\n(Amt in INR)\nTotal\n4,08,99,387\n2,42,17,906\n6,51,17,293\nAddition made u/s 143(3)\n1 Corporate Guarantee commission\n@0.50%\n(ITAT-4,08,99,387/-) (ITAT-2,42,17,906/-)\n2 Provision for diminution in value of stock

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

271(1)(c)\nAY 2017-18\nu/s 271AAB\nAY 2018-19\nu/s 271AAB\n(Amt in INR)\nTotal\nAddition made u/s 143(3)\n\n1\nCorporate Guarantee commission\n@0.50%\n4,08,99,387\n2,42,17,906\n6,51,17,293\n(ITAT-4,08,99,387/-) (ITAT-2,42,17,906/-)\n\n2\nProvision for diminution in value