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

153B and 153C are complete code for search assessments wherein search has been initiated after 3 1st May, 2003. The existence of the words “all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section” in Explanation (i) of section 153A makes it clear that in search assessments, amongst others the provisions relating to penalty

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. Any other ground or grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing.” 04. ITA number 1292/M/2018 is filed by Balaji Universal Trade Links Private Limited (Assessee/Appellant) against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 47, Mumbai (The Learned CIT (A)) dated 29/12/2017

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,VIRAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI, VIRAR EAST

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,VIRAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

OM DEVELOPERS,THANE vs. DCIT CC , THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC , THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

MR PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

MRS SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Further, penalty proceedings under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Further, penalty proceedings under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Further, penalty proceedings under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Further, penalty proceedings under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied