LYKA LABS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the show cause notice was invalid. The action is unjustified and unwarranted as the issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional high court in case of Mohd Farhan Shaikh and Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts

LYKA LABS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the show cause notice was invalid. The action is unjustified and unwarranted as the issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional high court in case of Mohd Farhan Shaikh and Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts

LYKA LABS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the show cause notice was invalid. The action is unjustified and unwarranted as the issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional high court in case of Mohd Farhan Shaikh and Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

COMMERZBANK AG ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

260A. Despite the conclusion of the entire appellate\nprocess in the quantum proceedings, the penalty order under\nsection 271(1)(c) saw the light of day only on 27.10.2023—\nmore than seventeen years after the CIT(A)'s order and more\nthan eleven years after the Tribunal's order.\n3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee specifically\ncontended that

ITO-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. JAS TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, BORIVALI WEST MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

271 (1 )(c) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the Jas Trading Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07, 2005-06 quantum proceedings vide appeal no. 3603/MUM/2013 dated 21.10.2022 was not accepted by the Revenue Department and further appeal u/s. 260A ofthe Act has been filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court ?" ITA Nos.313/MUM/2024 1. "Whether

ITO 12(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAS TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, BORIVALI WEST MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

271 (1 )(c) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the Jas Trading Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07, 2005-06 quantum proceedings vide appeal no. 3603/MUM/2013 dated 21.10.2022 was not accepted by the Revenue Department and further appeal u/s. 260A ofthe Act has been filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court ?" ITA Nos.313/MUM/2024 1. "Whether

DCIT CC- 2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

u/s 260A of the Act, before Hon'ble\nHigh Court, against the deletion of quantum addition.”\n3.\nThe roots for the levy of Penalty lie in the assessment order dated\n29.05.2019 framed under section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in\nshort \"Act\") by which the returned income of the assessee at\n₹.12,31,20,230/- was assessed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RONAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle- 2(4) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt Ltd Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No. Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 004 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aabcr 7550 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. Madhuri Tambe & Aishwarya Wanikar Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2023

u/s 153A of the order. We find in the case of Peter Vaz . We find in the case of Peter Vaz v/s CIT (2016) 436 ITR 616(Bombay) before the Hon’ble Bombay v/s CIT (2016) 436 ITR 616(Bombay) before the Hon’ble Bombay v/s CIT (2016) 436 ITR 616(Bombay) before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court question

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. MUNIWAR ABAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 21.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Charitable Trust registered with the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Act. Assessee has filed its return of income

BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee filed additional grounds on 04.12.2019 however The assessee filed additional grounds on 04.12.2019 however The assessee filed additional grounds on 04.12.2019 however finally revised its additional ground vide letter dated 16.03.2023 finally revised its additional ground vide letter dated

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

Penalty U/S 271(1) © rws 274 of the rws 274 of the Act, is initiate for concealment of Income concealment of Income.” 7.5 On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it had filed copy

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

260A of the Act, the Ld. AO ought not to have made the addition of the contribution towards corpus by the Settlors as the fact lies that the issue is squarely covered in favor of the appellant trust. 2.9 Thus, it will be appreciated that the Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 20.01.2017 has allowed the claim of the appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), THANE vs. RAJ MAITRY & ESKON DEVELOPER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalito Ward 4(1), R. No. 3, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle, Industrial Estate, Thane Thane (W)-400 064 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raj Maitry & Eskon Developer Viva Maitry Height, Opp. Cosmos, Legend, Sector-3, Viva Hdl Scheme, Virar (W)-401303 Pan – Aapfr9847R ..... Respondent

u/s. 68 on account of customer’s advance treatment by AO was void-ab-initio and Ld. CIT (A) rightly handled the issue by analysing the same in the light of the fact that same has been duly reflected in the books of account as per the accounting system 4 M/s Raj Maitry & Eskon Developer followed by the assessee under