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

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

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

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

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

b) was issued on 20.05.2022 along with approval u/s 151 of the Act from PCIT Mumbai-6 wherein the reason for reopening of assessment dated 28.06.2021 was attached. The assessee filed reply to the said notice on 01.07.2022, however vide order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, the assesse‟s case was re-opened u/s. 148 on presumption that assessee

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

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

B and C of the Act as applicable and notice of demand is issued under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Tax calculation sheet (ITNS 150 is annexed).” Thus, along with the draft assessment order dated 30th 09. November, 2018, a notice of demand amounting to Panasonic Life Solutions India

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

AMINA ASLAM QURESHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

penalty proceeding u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. On Facts and Circumstances of the Case and in Law, the the Ld. AO & Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming chargeability of Interest under the provision of section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Bench

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee i.e. M/s the assessee i.e. M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited (previously "Thermo Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited (previously "Thermo Thermo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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