DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. KANAKIA SPACES REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Kanakia Spaces Realty Room No. 420, Kautilya Bhawan, Private Limited Vs. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Plot No. 8, Vilco Centre, 3Rd Mumbai- 400051 Floor, Subhash Road, Opp Garware House, Vile Parle East, Mumbai- 400057 Pan No. Aaccc 4199 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Shweta Vardhan : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2025 : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order

section 271(1)(c) was levied ceased to exist. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as below: “6.1 Ground No.1 raised by the appellant pertains to levy of 6.1 Ground No.1 raised by the appellant pertains to levy of penalty 6.1 Ground No.1 raised by the appellant pertains

THE RUBY MILLS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Dcit, Circle – 8(3)(1), 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, J.K. Sawant Vs Aayakarbhawan,Mumbai-400020. Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 274 did not specify as to limb under which penalty was sought to be imposed, i.e., notice did not indicate as to whether penalty was to be levied on account of concealment of income or for reason that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars quashed penalty proceedings and High Court, on appeal, concluded that no substantial question of law arose

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

u/s 274 read with section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Both Notice of demand and penalty proceedings are further followed by subsequent communication. Therefore, it is merely not an error but for all practical purposes, the ld AO passed the final assessment order instead of Draft Assessment order. In penultimate paragraph also ld AO mentions section

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

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

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

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

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

149 of the Act. But the AO did not consider the said submissions and passed the assessment order. CO-162/Mum/2024 M/s. Kalpana Madhani Securities Pvt. Ltd. 7. The assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the legality of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act alongwith the addition made u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

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

149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer 1 Part of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025 C.O.No.260, 267,270, 272, 261, 269/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 1997-1998, 2001-2002 & 2008-2009 had formed a belief that income liable to tax had escaped assessment since various credits in the Foreign Bank Account were not offered to tax in India

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - CIRCLE 41-1-1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

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

149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer 1 Part of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025 C.O.No.260, 267,270, 272, 261, 269/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 1997-1998, 2001-2002 & 2008-2009 had formed a belief that income liable to tax had escaped assessment since various credits in the Foreign Bank Account were not offered to tax in India

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

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

149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer 1 Part of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025 C.O.No.260, 267,270, 272, 261, 269/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 1997-1998, 2001-2002 & 2008-2009 had formed a belief that income liable to tax had escaped assessment since various credits in the Foreign Bank Account were not offered to tax in India

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

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

271(1)c) of the Act be dropped. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding th The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying e action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/ interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/-, u/s 234B

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

271(1)c) of the Act be dropped. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding th The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying e action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/ interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/-, u/s 234B