AMBER CORPORATION,KALYAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

section 271(1)(c). (SHIVAJI B. GHODE) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3, Kalyan. 7. The validity/legality of such kind of notice as involved in this case has been examined by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal recently in the case of ChiragkumarRajendrabhai Shah Vs ITO, Ward 30(1)(2), [now] ITO Ward 41(3)(1

M/S.ALLIED DIGITAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the Assessee‟s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Allied Digital Services Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central 808, 8Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Circile 1(3), 905,9Th Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021. Old Cgo Building, Pan – Aaaca5509K Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The A.Y. 20101-11. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2013 Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S. 153(A) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.5,35,91,882/- & Rs.1,25,66,049/- On Account Of Disallowances Under Section 69C Of The Act & Section 2 M/S. Allied Digital Services Limited

Section 274 r.w.s. 271 (c) of the Act dated 28.03.2013 for concealment of particulars of income OR furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income meaning thereby without specifying any specific charge/limb. The AO further vide penalty order, ultimately levied the penalty under consideration for concealment of income OR furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which goes to show that

M/S MUMBADEVI VEYHICLES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Mumbadevi Ito Ward 41(4)(2), Veyhicles Room No. 854B, 8Th Shop No. 18, Suyash Vs. Floor, Kautilya Shopping Centre, Nnp, A. Bhavan, Bkc, K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Bandra (East), (E), Mumbai-400 065 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaofm0851F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the Appellant. 4.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the levy of penalty is bad in law, illegal and void as the 5 M/s. Mumbadevi Veyhicles necessary conditions for initiating and levying the penalty were not fulfilled, in terms of section

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) and dismissed all the\ngrounds of appeal, thereby dismissing the appeal in entirety.\n14. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal\nbefore us raising following grounds of appeal:\n1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order\nlevying penalty u/s

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

271(1)(c)\nof the Act.\nThe Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in\nthe matter.\nGround 3 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act - The\nsaid ground is consequential in nature\n3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO\nhas erred in charging interest of Rs. 1

R J CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 42(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section of Penalty 271(1)(c) 271(1)(c) Penalty Levied Rs. 5,19,336/- Rs. 1,49,268/- Order of CIT(A) 19.09.2025 19.09.2025 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: In ITA No. 7714/MUM/2025 - A.Y. 2010–11 1. The Penalty order passed u/s

R J CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 42(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section of Penalty 271(1)(c) 271(1)(c) Penalty Levied Rs. 5,19,336/- Rs. 1,49,268/- Order of CIT(A) 19.09.2025 19.09.2025 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: In ITA No. 7714/MUM/2025 - A.Y. 2010–11 1. The Penalty order passed u/s

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-11 and 2014-15. 2. Since all these matters pertain to the same assessee arising from the same factual matrix, these matters were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. With the consent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-11 and 2014-15. 2. Since all these matters pertain to the same assessee arising from the same factual matrix, these matters were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. With the consent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-11 and 2014-15. 2. Since all these matters pertain to the same assessee arising from the same factual matrix, these matters were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. With the consent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-11 and 2014-15. 2. Since all these matters pertain to the same assessee arising from the same factual matrix, these matters were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. With the consent

P CUBE CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR.13(1)(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

Section 271(1)(c), has been explained by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. as\nreported in 322 ITR 158 wherein it has been held as under:\n\"A glance at the provision of s. 271(1)(c) would suggest that in order to\nbe covered, there

RAJESH B, JAIN AS LEGAL OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike off the irrelevant portion and even the\nAssessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike off the irrelevant portion and even the\nAssessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain fact that the Ld. AO did not "strike off the irrelevant portion and even the Assessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty