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-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

RAJ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 151A of the Act requires that notice u/s 148 is to be issued by the assessing officer completing assessment in Faceless manner, that is, Assessment Unit. However, in the present case of the appellant, notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Thus, the notice u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and hence, the same

RAJ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 151A of the Act requires that notice u/s 148 is to be issued by the assessing officer completing assessment in Faceless manner, that is, Assessment Unit. However, in the present case of the appellant, notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Thus, the notice u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and hence, the same

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

151A of the Act read with notification issued on 29.03.2022 regarding e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 6. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made of Rs. 1,16,22,479/- (being 36 percentage of credit entries

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

151A of the Act read with notification issued on 29.03.2022 regarding e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 6. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made of Rs. 1,16,22,479/- (being 36 percentage of credit entries

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

penalty.\nReliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd.\n[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom)(HC) wherein it was held that Where\nthere is a conflict between different High Courts, the Ld AO\nmust follow the decision of the High Court within whose\njurisdiction

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

penalty.\nReliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd.\n[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom)(HC) wherein it was held that Where\nthere is a conflict between different High Courts, the Ld AO\nmust follow the decision of the High Court within whose\njurisdiction

CHINTAN HARSHAD KANAKIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhsmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Ito Ward 42 (1)(1) Room No. 103, Sacovar Apt., Sagar Complex, 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (W), Bkc, Mumbai -400051 Mumbai Pan – Agnpk6023E

section 151A of the Act which mandates that the notice u/s 148 can only be issued by the faceless Assessing Officer and not by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act and Rules made there under. ITA No. 2822 /Mum/2025 (AY 2015-16) Chintan Harshad

JAMES IVAN DANTIS,MUMBAI vs. ITO -41(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16. ITAs No.4093/Mum/2025 & 628/Mum/2026(A.Ys. 2015-16) 2 2. This appeal is delayed by 130 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the assessee. In its application seeking condonation of delay

JAMES IVAN DANTIS,NIGERIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-41(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16. ITAs No.4093/Mum/2025 & 628/Mum/2026(A.Ys. 2015-16) 2 2. This appeal is delayed by 130 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the assessee. In its application seeking condonation of delay

RAMAKRISHNAN VINAYAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 34(2)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 22.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2 Ramakrishnan Vinayan, AY – 2016-17 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “Ground 1: General 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) and learned AO is based on incorrect application of facts

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

penalty.\nReliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd.\n[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom)(HC) wherein it was held that Where\nthere is a conflict between different High Courts, the Ld AO\nmust follow the decision of the High Court within whose\njurisdiction