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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

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

148A(b) proceedings. However, following the issuance of notice under Section 148, the However, following the issuance of notice under Section 148, the However, following the issuance of notice under Section 148, the Assessee filed a return of income withdrawing the said claim and Assessee filed a return of income withdrawing the said claim and Assessee filed a return

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act.” 6. In both appeals, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act and has also raised the grounds on merits, challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”). Since the ground challenging the reopening

SHIVRAM S SHETTY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

penalty notice dated 30th March, 2022 issued under section\n274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2015-16.”\n13. From the above observation, it is evident that though the Joint/Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax has recommended for reopening of the assessment to the\nLd. PCIT for his approval, the Hon'ble High Court held that

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

penalty notice dated 30th March, 2022 issued under section\n274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2015-16.”\n13. From the above observation, it is evident that though the Joint/Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax has recommended for reopening of the assessment to the\nLd. PCIT for his approval, the Hon'ble High Court held that

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JASVINDER KALYAN SALUJA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

148A(d) dated dated 20/07/2022 and issue notice u/s 148 20/07/2022 and issue notice u/s 148 dated 25/07/2022 as after dated 25/07/2022 as after 29/03/2022 same can be done in a faceless manner 29/03/2022 same can be done in a faceless manner as provid as provided u/s 144B i.e. by Faceless Assessing Officer in view of 144B i.e. by Faceless

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI vs. DEVANG AJIT JAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above." 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty taken as the relevant date as far as the section 275(1)(c) of the Act is concerned. In these cases, the quantum proceedings were completed

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above." 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty taken as the relevant date as far as the section 275(1)(c) of the Act is concerned. In these cases, the quantum proceedings were completed

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

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)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the income tax act is initiated for non response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the act. Computation of income and demand notice u/s 156 of the act is attached.” 7. Aggrieved by the impugned assessment order, assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and has raised before him total 5 grounds

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX vs. DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

271 D\nfor violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.\"\n12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid\njudgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty\nproceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date is to be\ntaken as the relevant date as far as the section

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

271 D\nfor violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.\"\n12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid\njudgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty\nproceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date is to be\ntaken as the relevant date as far as the section

IMPRESSIVE TRADING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

penalty proceedings are also initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct. All these have been challenged in the present petition.\n15. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the\nPetitioner, submitted as under:-\na) The assessment order dated 17.10.2025 is bad in law as the same is\npursuant to the notice under Section

IMPRESSIVE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings are also initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these have been challenged in the present petition. 15. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted as under:- a) The assessment order dated 17.10.2025 is bad in law as the same is pursuant to the notice under Section

IMPRESSIVE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings are also initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these have been challenged in the present petition. 15. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted as under:- a) The assessment order dated 17.10.2025 is bad in law as the same is pursuant to the notice under Section

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KALPANA MADHANI SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit-14(1)(1) M/S. Kalpana Madhani R. No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Securities Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 11/1102, Shanti Tower, Shanti Mumbai-400 020 Path, Near Garodia Nagar, Mumbai-400 077 Pan: Aabck2968H

271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the penalty proceeding are separate proceedings from the assessment proceedings and therefore penalty proceedings are to be appealled against separately by the assessee. 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initi u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. with a view to concealment of income.” 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee challenged validity of the challenged validity