AMBER CORPORATION,KALYAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches

M/S MUMBADEVI VEYHICLES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Mumbadevi Ito Ward 41(4)(2), Veyhicles Room No. 854B, 8Th Shop No. 18, Suyash Vs. Floor, Kautilya Shopping Centre, Nnp, A. Bhavan, Bkc, K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Bandra (East), (E), Mumbai-400 065 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaofm0851F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground of alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in – (i) Basing his action on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; (ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations; and (iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations. 5.3 It is submitted that in the facts

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

13. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of Rs. 37,29,845/- levied under section 271(1)(c) and dismissed all the grounds of appeal, thereby dismissing the appeal in entirety. 14. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and circumstances

R J CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 42(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

u/s 274 of the Act is bad in law and therefore, the consequential order is also bad in law. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. R. J. Corporation 7. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee, during the course of hearing before us, reiterated

R J CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 42(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

u/s 274 of the Act is bad in law and therefore, the consequential order is also bad in law. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. R. J. Corporation 7. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee, during the course of hearing before us, reiterated

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty @ 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs. 1,13,35,645/-. 7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty @ 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs. 1,13,35,645/-. 7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty @ 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs. 1,13,35,645/-. 7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s

RAJESH B, JAIN AS LEGAL OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir Of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17Th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aafpj1924R Assessee -अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Revenue - प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv, Shri Fenil Bhat & Shri Sucheck Anchaliya, Ca

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty @ 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs. 1,13,35,645/-. 7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s

ALKA ASHOK JAGTAP,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

u/s 271(1)(c) may kindly be deleted.” 10. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the levy and confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts and deserves to be deleted in toto. The AR emphasised that the amount of Rs. 6,47,054/-, on which

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. KANAKIA SPACES REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Kanakia Spaces Realty Room No. 420, Kautilya Bhawan, Private Limited Vs. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Plot No. 8, Vilco Centre, 3Rd Mumbai- 400051 Floor, Subhash Road, Opp Garware House, Vile Parle East, Mumbai- 400057 Pan No. Aaccc 4199 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Shweta Vardhan : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2025 : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order

section 271(1)(c) was levied ceased to exist. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as below: “6.1 Ground No.1 raised by the appellant pertains to levy of 6.1 Ground No.1 raised by the appellant pertains to levy of penalty 6.1 Ground No.1 raised by the appellant pertains