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

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

P CUBE CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR.13(1)(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

13(1)(2),\n1/A/101, Umiya Nagar\nAayakar Bhavan, Maharishi\nVishweshwar Nagar Road\nKarve Marg, Churchgate,\n(East), Mumbai 400 063,\nMaharashtra\nOff Aarey Road, Goregaon\nMumbai 400020,\nMaharashtra\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADCP9320N\nAppellant/अपीलार्थी\n..\nRespondent/प्रतिवादी\nAppellant by :\nShri Shailesh Sethi, CA\nRespondent by :\nShri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)\nDate of Hearing\n22.01.2026\nDate

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

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the\nld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy\nthe ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty @ 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs.\n1,13,35,645/-.\n7.\nBeing dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s 271

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

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the\nld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy\nthe ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty @ 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs.\n1,13,35,645/-.\n7.\nBeing dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s 271

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

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the\nld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy\nthe ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty @ 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs.\n1,13,35,645/-.\n7.\nBeing dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s 271

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

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the\nld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy\nthe ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs.\n1,13,35,645/-.\n7.\nBeing dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s 271