BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

146 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai146Delhi63Pune53Ahmedabad48Jaipur42Chennai39Hyderabad29Indore29Bangalore24Rajkot24Visakhapatnam23Chandigarh22Kolkata21Lucknow16Agra15Surat14Cochin11Amritsar11Raipur11Dehradun6Patna6Allahabad5Nagpur4Guwahati3Jodhpur3Jabalpur2

Key Topics

Section 148131Section 147105Addition to Income74Section 25055Section 142(1)49Section 69A48Reopening of Assessment45Section 143(3)42Penalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6706/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 148 of the Act was time barred and bad in law\nand therefore the notice u/s. 271(1)( c ) of the Income-tax Act and\norder passed u/s. 271(1)( c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued pursuant to\nsuch an order was bad in law as no such notice can be issued for\npassing order u/s

Showing 1–20 of 146 · Page 1 of 8

...
42
Section 26338
Reassessment37
Section 254(1)27

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 897/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 275

u/s 142(1) of the Act vide dated 28-10-2022,22-12-2022, 10-01- 2023 and 25- 01-2023 for the A.Y 2015-16. Demand notice is attached herewith.” 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that though the first 4 notices were not responded

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7899/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

144B of the Act vide order dated 27.03.2022 determining the total income at Rs. 40,50,371/-, being the same 3 M/s. Mumbadevi Veyhicles income returned by the assessee in response to notice under section 148. 5. While completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4463/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has concealed its income. Therefore, the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4464/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has concealed its income. Therefore, the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4462/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has concealed its income. Therefore, the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4465/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has concealed its income. Therefore, the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271

EXIM TRAC,MUMBAI vs. MUM-C-(431)(91), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 8948/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri VP KothariFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 80G

144B read with Section 147, accepting the returned income. 147, accepting the returned income. 2.3 The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A, alleging "under proceedings under Section 270A, alleging "under-reporting of reporting of income in consequence of misreporting." The income

NIYATI SUTARIA JEMES ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailniyati Sutaria James, 302 Parimal Premises, 17Th Road, Khar West, Mumbai – 400052 ............... Appellant Pan : Ahipj7649B V/S Ito, Ward – 23(2)(1), Piramal Chambers, Parel ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri Anil Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274

u/s 142(1). The appellant submits that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in holding that since the notices/ letters/ communication have been served on the e-mail id registered in the income tax portal by the assessee herself, it should not be construed as 'reasonable cause' as per the provision

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -1 PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7676/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 PALGHAR, THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7675/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7674/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-1 PALGHAR , MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7677/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

DINESH SUNDERJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 275/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)

144B of the Act was passed on 22nd May, 2021, wherein there is an addition under Section 56(2)(X) of the Act of ₹11,50,540/-, and denial of carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss of ₹339,66,946/-, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 83,76,480/-. 08. Assessee aggrieved with the same preferred

DINESH SUNDERJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 274/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)

144B of the Act was passed on 22nd May, 2021, wherein there is an addition under Section 56(2)(X) of the Act of ₹11,50,540/-, and denial of carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss of ₹339,66,946/-, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 83,76,480/-. 08. Assessee aggrieved with the same preferred

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANKITA REALITY AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. EktaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with the law especially since he has grossly erred in not being specific with regards to the limb under which he intends to initiate penalty proceedings.” 5. We will first deal with the revenue appeal wherein the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has deleted the addition on merits

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

144B of the I.T Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18 was passed on 30.03.2022 accepting the returned income. 3. On verification of the assessment records, it is noticed that your firm was engaged in the business of construction and has offered sale proceeds of Rs. 35,71,00.001/- in its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessment proceedings

M/S. JAGRUTI COMPUTECH PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 5751/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)

Penalty u/s 271(1) (b) and 271(1)(c) by mail on my mail id subashvkaranj@gmail.com on 30/09/2022, which I forwarded to Shri xx xx and enquired form him on this. 12. That I said to Shri xx xx that I am unable to understand what is this demand for as I have been forwarding the emails which I received

HETAL PAGARE, ACIT 16(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HASMUKH KABABHAI RAVAT, MULUND WEST

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

ITA 120/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 Pan: Aabpr2061D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

section 147. r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the act is initiated

RUSHIKESH JAGDISHCHANDRA NAIK,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT , NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4458/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

144B on 29.09.2021 and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b). During the assessment proceedings, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 19.08.2021 requiring the assessee to furnish requisite details but assessee failed to comply. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(b) for not filing any response of notice u/s. 142(1) was initiated and minimum penalty