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

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

D. Nitin & Co. [2015] 59 taxmann.com 146 (Ahd.) Hence, it is submitted that viewed from any angle, the penalty of Rs. 21,005 is totally uncalled for and liable to be deleted. 4. I have carefully considered the penalty order, the grounds of appeal, and the written submission of the appellant. The appellant, referring to paragraphs

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

D. Nitin & Co. [2015] 59 taxmann.com 146 (Ahd.) Hence, it is submitted that viewed from any angle, the penalty of Rs. 21,005 is totally uncalled for and liable to be deleted. 4. I have carefully considered the penalty order, the grounds of appeal, and the written submission of the appellant. The appellant, referring to paragraphs

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

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, t of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far he assessment order erroneous in so far Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 AY 2017-18 as prejudicial to the interest of the Rev as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of enue. The relevant

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)

D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 7714/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. ITA No. 7715/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) R. J. Corporation ITO-42(1)(4), Flat No. 102, Priya Prabha Kautilya Bhavan, Bldg, Daulat Nagar Road- Vs. Mumbai-400 051 10, Borivali (East), Mumbai-400 066. PAN/GIR

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)

D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 7714/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. ITA No. 7715/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) R. J. Corporation ITO-42(1)(4), Flat No. 102, Priya Prabha Kautilya Bhavan, Bldg, Daulat Nagar Road- Vs. Mumbai-400 051 10, Borivali (East), Mumbai-400 066. PAN/GIR

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

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

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

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

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

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

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

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

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

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

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

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

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

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

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

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

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

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

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

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

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN vs. RASHESH SHIRISHKUMAR BHUTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No.4370/Mum/2023 and ITA No.4368/Mum/2023 are filed by The Income tax officer 41(3)(3), Mumbai [ the ld. AO ] against the appellate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 dated 3/10/2023 and 4/10/2023 respectively, wherein the appeal filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN vs. RASHESH SHIRISHKUMAR BHUTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No.4370/Mum/2023 and ITA No.4368/Mum/2023 are filed by The Income tax officer 41(3)(3), Mumbai [ the ld. AO ] against the appellate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 dated 3/10/2023 and 4/10/2023 respectively, wherein the appeal filed

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These captioned appeals filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 51, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. The revenue has instituted the present appeal challenging the order dated 06.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. A. J. Diam 2011-12, wherein