DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty. In this case, facts stated supra clearly establish that the notice issued under section 274 read with 271 of the Act is defective and, therefore, we find it difficult to hold that the learned AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to passed

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

156 of the Act and followed with a show cause notice for levy of penalty u/s 274 read with section 271

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/- by not appreciating that by not appreciating that the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961 are not applicable to facts of the case and the 1961 are not applicable

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/- by not appreciating that by not appreciating that the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961 are not applicable to facts of the case and the 1961 are not applicable

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/- by not appreciating that by not appreciating that the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961 are not applicable to facts of the case and the 1961 are not applicable

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/- by not appreciating that by not appreciating that the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961 are not applicable to facts of the case and the 1961 are not applicable

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/- by not appreciating that by not appreciating that the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961 are not applicable to facts of the case and the 1961 are not applicable

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/- by not appreciating that by not appreciating that the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961 are not applicable to facts of the case and the 1961 are not applicable

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

156/- by not appreciating that by not appreciating that the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act the said provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961 are not applicable to facts of the case and the 1961 are not applicable

LORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

156 of the act and also a show cause notice of penalty u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1) (C) of the act along

GLOBAL HOSPITALITY LICENSING SARL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RANGE - 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhglobal Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Licensing Sarl Income Tax (I.T.) C/O Marriot Hotels India Range-2(3)(2) Private Limited 303A, Room No. 1702, 17Th 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Floor, Air India Building, Hiranandani Business Nariman Point, Park, Sahar Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg5657K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Paras Savla Pratik Poddar Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das

156 of the act and also a show cause notice of penalty u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1) (C) of the act along

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JTDY/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the above adjustments. above adjustments. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend any or all of the above grounds

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the above adjustments. above adjustments. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend any or all of the above grounds

ASHWIN LILADHAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin Liladhar Shah V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wile Mansion 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Abeps5329R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) in this case was issued only on 28/12/2019 therefore non issuance of penalty show cause notice u/s.271(1)(c) simultaneously along with the assessment order and notice of demand u/s. 156

LALIT BHASKAR BHALERAO ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 2(5), KALYAN , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemr. Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao Vs The Ito.W. 2(5), Kalyan Rom No. 25-B, 6Th Floor, Ashar It (Individual), Plot No. 56, Flat No. 101, Hansa Park, Wagale Indl, Estate, Apartment Kansai Section, Thane-400604 Ambernath East, Thane-421501 Pan : Ammpb3272D Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961. 7. Accordingly, this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act, 1961. The minimum penalty leviable in this case is Rs.6,28,0207- (Tax payable as per income assessed is Rs.643223 - Tax payable as per return filed by the assessee Rs.15

VIRMABHAI AJABAJI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvirmabhai Ajabbaji Patel Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5) Room No. 201, Matru 156, Room No. 6, Mistry Mandir Bldg, Tardeo Bldg, 2Nd Kumbharwala Road, Mumbai. (Vijesh Metal) – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Agkpp3389B (Applicant) (Respondent)

156, Room No. 6, Mistry Mandir Bldg, Tardeo Bldg, 2nd Kumbharwala Road, Mumbai. (Vijesh Metal) – 400004. PAN/GIR No. AGKPP3389B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Mr. Nirav Shah Revenue by Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM: This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S PATAN SOLAR PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. M/Spatansolarpvtltd., Central Circle – 2(4) 602, 6Th Floor, Western Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Edge-I,Western Prathishtha Bhavan, Express Highway, Mk Road, Churchgate, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aafcp6744A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. V.K. Chaturvedi.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

NAYANKUMAR JAYANTILAL BALU,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/S 271(1)(c)\nके संबंध में मेरे यहां होने वाली कार्रवाई के दौरान मुझे पतीत\nWhereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment Year 2009-10 it appears to\nme that You:-\n* बिना उचित कारण के वह आय विवरणी नहीं दी है जो आपको भारतीय आयकर अधिनियम, 1922 की\n22(1), 22(2) / 34 के