ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of various additions. The assessee filed appeal against the quantum additions before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Reliance Industries Ltd After receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee as why the penalty

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

151 ITR 189) that penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) are applicable even when assessment is made on basis of an estimate. v) Finally the case of Hari Gopai Singh Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) is relating to an assessee engaged in the business of sale of sweets, who did not maintain any books of accounts

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

151 ITR 189) that penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) are applicable even when assessment is made on basis of an estimate. v) Finally the case of Hari Gopai Singh Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) is relating to an assessee engaged in the business of sale of sweets, who did not maintain any books of accounts

SAI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 , THANE

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

u/s 153 r.w.s 153C of the Act. In the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2017) 80 taxmann.com 162 (Guj). The following finding has been given as under.:- “8. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. Before dealing with the contentions, it would be relevant to reproduce Explanation 5 to Section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

271 of the IT Act. In the notice, the AO has scored off the phrase \"have concealed the particulars of your income\" and the charge intimated for initiation of penalty was \"for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income\". In subsequent notices, reference was made to notice dated 10.11.2020. In the subsequent notices, it was specifically mentioned that why order

DEEPAK JATIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shalla) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified

NAVNITLAL K PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2004-05 Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh, Acit, F-2, 77 & 78 Gujrati Society Cc-45, बनाम/ Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400057 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaccp6245F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shailesh Parmar Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh

151 and 153 has been completely excluded by operation of non-obstante clause “Notwithstanding anything contained” the search assessments made u/s section 153A of the Act cannot be treated as continuance of normal assessment proceedings whether abated or not. Thus there is complete detachment of assessment proceedings u/s 143 or 147 from search proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. When

PREMJI BHURLAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RANG 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

271 (D) of the Act and by following the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd. (supra) deleted the identical penalty by observing and holding as under: “28. We find an identical issue had come up before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) where the Tribunal

AJAY MULTI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajay Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, C.J. House, 285 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aadca 0338 H Appellant Respondent

section 148A have not been followed and as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. The sanction u/s 151 is bad in law and as a result, the The sanction u/s 151

LAND MARK DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE, 4, THANE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5494/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. (ii) It is also rightly pointed out that in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by the A.O for any reasons the assessee will invite Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) that is clearly NOT the intendment of the Legislature. 2) Sir, once again to support our stand

PIYUSH A. VORA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhpiyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent) Piyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent) Ta No.3223/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Piyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent) Piyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c), on the fact of the present case. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 17. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 3224/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12[under section 271AAA] 18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. A. The Ld. Commissioner of Income

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

151 of the Act. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.04.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 40,50,371/-. 3. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) was issued. The proceedings were thereafter transferred to the Faceless Assessment Scheme and notices under section 142(1) were issued calling for details such as nature

ANUSHAKTI CHEMICALS & DRUGS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AARTI HEALTHCARE LTD. NOW MERGED INTO AARTI INDUSTRIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - RANGE-2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Mum/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11) Anushakti Chemicals & Pr. Cit, Range-2 Drugs Ltd. Room No.1920, 19Th Floor, Air (Formerly Known As Aarti India Building, Nariman बनाम/ Health Care Ltd. Now Point, Mumbai-400 021, Vs. Merged Into Aarti Industries Maharashtra Ltd.) Mumbai (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabca2787L अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 was initiated. However, the A.O. failed to initiate the said proceedings in the fresh assessment order passed in consequence to the order of Hon'ble ITAT referred to above. ” ITAs No. 639/Mum/2021 Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.; AY 10-11 5. The above facts are undisputed by both the sides

N. JAMNADAS & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 N. Jamnadas & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Of 16, Bank Street, Fort, Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs. Mumbai-400001. 6(4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccfn8427G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Y.P. Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2018

151/- is reiterated and penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued. In the order u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 27.10.2011 passed, the AO has held in concluding para that there is concealment of income, and also furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. Thus in the instant case

SUMITA SHREEGOPAL BARASIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble G. Manjunatha, Ajm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4909/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

151-C, Grand Prady Apartments, August Kranti Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400036 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AFQPB9010G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi T Shri Sunil S. Jhunjhunwala, ARs प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07/08/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member

ITO 3(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. G.E. GLOBAL SOURCING INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 4194/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) was later deleted by learned CIT(A) by relying on the several judicial precedent and the factual matrix of the case. In the meantime , the appeal against quantum additions were decided by the tribunal in ITA no. 4610/Mum/2013 for AY 2009-10 vide orders dated 13th June 2016, wherein tribunal dismissed