SILVER SHIELD ENERGY P .LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(3)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negisilver Shield Energy Private Limited, C/O. Shroff & Co. Contractor Building, Ground Floor, Vaju Kotak Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400038 Pan:Aaccs 7799D ... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer 2(3)-2, 581-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the grounds that (i) the assessee failed to produce evidence of foreign exchange obtained amounting to Rs.2,71,400/- from Kanji Forex P. Ltd. And (ii) that the assessee failed to establish that the expenditure incurred on foreign travel was for the purposes of the assessee’s business. 3.1 Aggrieved

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Penalty proceedings initiated on this issue. 9. In view of the order passed under section 144C(1) followed by order passed under section 144C(5) of the I.T. Act 1961, total income, as provided under section 144C(13) read with section 1.43(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is computed and assessed as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Profits & Gains

MHATRE ELECTRONICS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income. The CIT(A) for the detailed discussion in his order dated 4-10-2013, confirmed penalty levied by the A.O. to the extent 5 Mhatre Electronics Pvt Ltd of addition confirmed towards commission and deleted penalty levied on all other additions/disallowances. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) orders, the assessee as well

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. MHATRE ELECTRONICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income. The CIT(A) for the detailed discussion in his order dated 4-10-2013, confirmed penalty levied by the A.O. to the extent 5 Mhatre Electronics Pvt Ltd of addition confirmed towards commission and deleted penalty levied on all other additions/disallowances. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) orders, the assessee as well

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Since the said issue has already been considered by DRP as well as AO, therefore, the said issue is not liable to be revised in accordance with law subsequently by invoking the revisional power u/s

SMT. KASHMIRA MODI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Kashmira Modi Ito-21(2)(1), Piramal 5, Sheel, Marie Co-Op, Hsg Chambers, Mumbai-12. Vs. Society, Abdul Gaffar Khan Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018. Pan No. Aafpm7124E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2019

section 50C could not be applied to leasehold land as per various judgments of various authorities. d. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order in which the Assessing Officer followed directions of JCIT u/s 144A without providing opportunity to the appellant to rebut the directions of JCIT u/s 144A

BHAGWATI RAJARAM CHANDORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 18(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhagwati Rajaram Chandora, Room No.30, 3Rd Floor, Ganesh Bhuwan, 80 Ramwadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400002 ............... Appellant Pan : Aecpc8718H V/S Ito, Ward – 18(1)(2), Mumbai - 400002 ……………… Respondent

144A. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in making additions by treating Notional Cash Commission of Rs. 1,86,489/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that there was no evidence of payment of commission in Cash and that the Appellant

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 4373/Mum/2005 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act and deleted the penalty. It is settled legal position that where two legally sustainable views are possible and the assessee has followed one of such view in preference of the other the same cannot be considered as a case of concealment of income. Moreover, the issue is debatable one and as per our considered

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 6. Subject to the discussion in the proceeding paragraphs, the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is computed as under: - Sr. No. Computation of total income Amount (In. Rs.) A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Remy Diamonds

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 6. Subject to the discussion in the proceeding paragraphs, the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is computed as under: - Sr. No. Computation of total income Amount (In. Rs.) A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Remy Diamonds

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 6. Subject to the discussion in the proceeding paragraphs, the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is computed as under: - Sr. No. Computation of total income Amount (In. Rs.) A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Remy Diamonds

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act on the following grounds:- “The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and independent of the other(s). On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant] craves to prefer an appeal against the order passed

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act on the following grounds:- “The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and independent of the other(s). On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant] craves to prefer an appeal against the order passed

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act on the following grounds:- “The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and independent of the other(s). On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant] craves to prefer an appeal against the order passed

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPLANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act on the following grounds:- “The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and independent of the other(s). On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant] craves to prefer an appeal against the order passed

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.(O.S.D.) -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act on the following grounds:- “The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and independent of the other(s). On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant] craves to prefer an appeal against the order passed

IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,MUMBAI, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-5, AYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Penalty or Fine for Violation of any Law\n5. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide\norder dt. 30/04/2021. Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by the\nprovisions of Section 263 of the Act, the PCIT-5, Mumbai, issued the\nfollowing show cause notice:-\n***This space has been left blank intentionally (P.T.O)***\nआयकर अपीलीय

LALITADEVI GIRIRAJ KISHORE MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

Penalty Unit u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Applicant then immediately appointed a new CA who checked the e-filing portal and noticed that the said notices were indeed issued & remained to be complied with. On further probing, he noticed that the ld.Addl / Jt.CIT has dismissed the quantum appeal for want of prosecution vide order dt.28.06.2024