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

D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeals are instituted at the instance of assessee, challenging the common order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (for short “ld. CIT(A)”), dated 23.02.2024 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2008-09 to AY 2014-15, which in turn arises from the order passed u/s 271(1

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 06.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. CIT Circle 3(4), 3rd floor, Maker Chamber IV 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAACR 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 ACIT

RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

d. since the claim was made relying on Form 56G which was duly certified by the expert i.e. Chartered Accountant, no penalty can be levied on the disallowance of the same; Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd 3 e. when the process of detection of allegedly concealed income was not complete, in fact nothing related to the issue under consideration was pointed

SANJIV KRISHNAKANT ASHTAMKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Shri. Sanjiv Krishnakant Income Tax Officer 3(3) Ashtamkar Room No.8, B Wing, B-2, Ratna Umaid Ashar It Park, V. Residency, Pipe Line Road, Rd No. 16-Z, Luiswadi, Thane 400604 Wagle Industrial Estate, Maharashtra Thane (W)- 400604 Maharashtra स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abbpa3596K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Kishore Poddar Revenue By: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6579/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.08.2017 In Appeal No. Pn/Cit(A)-2/Ito Wd-3(3)/Thn/83/2017-18, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 27.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay: 2009-10. I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017

D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No. 6579/Mum/2017, is directed against appellate order dated 31.08.2017 in Appeal No. PN/CIT(A)-2/ITO Wd-3(3)/THN/83/2017-18, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for assessment year(ay) 2009-10, the appellate proceedings

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No. 1290/Mum/2017, is directed against appellate order dated 01.11.2016 in appeal no. CIT(A)-18/IT-126/ITO-8(3)(2)/14-15, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for assessment year 2009-10, the appellate proceedings had arisen before

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 292B and 29BB of the 1961 Act. Thus, keeping in view factual matrix of the ground, this legal ground is also adjudicated against the assessee. Thus, the assessee fails on both legal ground as well on merits of the issue with respect to deposit of cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- in bank account for which penalty as levied

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member: These two appeals, filed by Assessee, being ITA No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, are directed against two separate appellate orders both dated 22.08.2017 in appeal no. CIT(A)-53/DCCC-5(2)/IT- 123/2012-13 and CIT(A)-53/DCCC-5(2)/IT-124/2012-13 respectively, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (hereinafter called

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member: These two appeals, filed by Assessee, being ITA No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, are directed against two separate appellate orders both dated 22.08.2017 in appeal no. CIT(A)-53/DCCC-5(2)/IT- 123/2012-13 and CIT(A)-53/DCCC-5(2)/IT-124/2012-13 respectively, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (hereinafter called

SUSHIL S. JHUNJHUNWALA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 3001 To 3007/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2008-09) Shushil S. Jhujhunwala (Huf) Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4) बिधम/ Flat No. 41/42, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Meghna Apt, S.V. Road, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aajhs5267C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. On facts & Circumstances of the case & law on the subject the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.7466/- On facts & circumstances of the case & law on the subject the levied penalty be deleted. The appellant craves to add or amend or alter the grounds of appeal.” The assessee

PUSHPA JHAMU SUGHAND ( LATE SHRI JHAMU SUGHAND,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 5730/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2000-01) बिाम/ Late Sh. Jhamu Sughand Asst. Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Smt. Income Tax- Central V. Pushpa Jhamu Sughand, Circle- 13 17/6 Rama Krishna Chs Mumbai. Ltd., Juhu Mumbai - 400049 स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aajps0695L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 5730/Mum/2013, is directed against the appellate order dated 28th August, 2013 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) for assessment year 2000-01, appellate proceedings before learned CIT(A) has arisen from the penalty order

ACIT CC 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D Bench (2006) 101 ITJ (Mumbai) 553 wherein it has been held that conditional surrender of income during the survey with a request not to impose penalty having been accepted by the revenue, no penalty for concealment could be levied especially when there is no other evidence to prove the concealment was brought on record by the revenue. ii) Orient

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JATIN J.SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D Bench (2006) 101 ITJ (Mumbai) 553 wherein it has been held that conditional surrender of income during the survey with a request not to impose penalty having been accepted by the revenue, no penalty for concealment could be levied especially when there is no other evidence to prove the concealment was brought on record by the revenue. ii) Orient

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

D Bench (2006) 101 ITJ (Mumbai) 553 wherein it has been held that conditional surrender of income during the survey with a request not to impose penalty having been accepted by the revenue, no penalty for concealment could be levied especially when there is no other evidence to prove the concealment was brought on record by the revenue. ii) Orient

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-40, Mumbai, dated 30.06.2014, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), dated

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured