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 80IC of the Act 02. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- ““Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant) craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -7(2) (hereinafter referred

ALKA ASHOK JAGTAP,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

154 dated 19.06.2018, the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kalyan, passed an order giving effect dated 19.06.2018, determining the revised total income of the assessee at Rs. 7,09,828/-. 7. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Notices under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) were issued

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same

FORBES PHARM CHEM TECHNOLOGIES,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

154,250 being tax sought to be evaded on estimated addition sustained @ 6% of alleged bogus purchases without appreciating that the addition of alleged non-genuine purchases was made on a difference of opinion; and there was neither concealment of income nor filing of inaccurate of income, as the Appellant had furnished all material particulars in support of its claim

LATA PRAKASH MARADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

penalty levied by the ld Assessing Officer(AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: Lata Prakash Maradia 2 “1) The Ld. AO erred in the fact that the income received

SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act was passed on 30/06/2025. The order was served on the email of my CA. My CA on his return from Chennai on 07/09/2025 took up the matter. (Travel details PNR No. 8434310649 From LTT to Chennai 12th August 2025 and Return PNR No. 4221824634 Return date 07th September 2025 From Chennai to LTT Mumbai

ASHOK KAILASH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act did not score out the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act under which the appellant was considered to be in default; and - in the order levying penalty, firstly he considered the appellant to be in default for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and ultimately levied penalty for concealment of income

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA P LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TOTAL OIL INDIA P LTD.), MUMBAI

u/s 271(1)(c) has become infructuous and in an implied manner holding that this penalty cannot be sustained in view of Hon’ble ITAT’s earlier order in ITA No. 4300/M/2016 dated 09/07/2019, deleting the quantum additions, when the department had filed an appeal against the said order of the Hon’ble ITAT before the Hon’ble High Court

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature at this stage therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 & 8 to 10: confirming the levying of interest u/s 220 (2) of the Act: P a g e | 25 19 Appeals SBI Capital Market Ltd. Vs. ACIT,Range 4(3)(3) 41. During the course of assessment

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature at this stage therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 & 8 to 10: confirming the levying of interest u/s 220 (2) of the Act: P a g e | 25 19 Appeals SBI Capital Market Ltd. Vs. ACIT,Range 4(3)(3) 41. During the course of assessment

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT SPECIAL RANGE, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature at this stage therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 & 8 to 10: confirming the levying of interest u/s 220 (2) of the Act: P a g e | 25 19 Appeals SBI Capital Market Ltd. Vs. ACIT,Range 4(3)(3) 41. During the course of assessment

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature at this stage therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 & 8 to 10: confirming the levying of interest u/s 220 (2) of the Act: P a g e | 25 19 Appeals SBI Capital Market Ltd. Vs. ACIT,Range 4(3)(3) 41. During the course of assessment

DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. S.B.I CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature at this stage therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 & 8 to 10: confirming the levying of interest u/s 220 (2) of the Act: P a g e | 25 19 Appeals SBI Capital Market Ltd. Vs. ACIT,Range 4(3)(3) 41. During the course of assessment

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-IV, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature at this stage therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 & 8 to 10: confirming the levying of interest u/s 220 (2) of the Act: P a g e | 25 19 Appeals SBI Capital Market Ltd. Vs. ACIT,Range 4(3)(3) 41. During the course of assessment

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature at this stage therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 & 8 to 10: confirming the levying of interest u/s 220 (2) of the Act: P a g e | 25 19 Appeals SBI Capital Market Ltd. Vs. ACIT,Range 4(3)(3) 41. During the course of assessment