M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

271 , section section 271A, 22 [ section 271A section 271AA,] section 271AA 271B 23[, section 271BA section 271BA], 24 [ section 271BB section 271BB,] section 271C , 25[ section 271CA , ] section section 271D, section 271D section 271F, 27 271E, 26 [ 27 [ section 271FA,] 28 [ section 271FB,] 29 [ section 271G section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub (c) or clause (d

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

u/s 271FA of the Act for delay in filing the A of the Act for delay in filing the statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, section 271FA of the Act is reproduced as under: e Act is reproduced as under: “[Penalty

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

u/s 271FA of the Act for delay in filing the A of the Act for delay in filing the statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, section 271FA of the Act is reproduced as under: e Act is reproduced as under: “[Penalty

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

u/s 271FA of the Act for delay in filing the A of the Act for delay in filing the statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, section 271FA of the Act is reproduced as under: e Act is reproduced as under: “[Penalty

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

u/s 271FA of the Act for delay in filing the A of the Act for delay in filing the statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, section 271FA of the Act is reproduced as under: e Act is reproduced as under: “[Penalty

WEST COAST FINE FOODS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,ANDHERI, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13(3)(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 44AB of the Act, by the specified date for the A.Y. 2017-18, despite the appellant having gross receipts of Rs. 212,51,06,142/-. Consequently, the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under section 271B is in order, and I find no infirmity in the same.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that

HARESH GHASHYAMDAS MAKHIJA,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

D E R Per Bench : The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the ex parte order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short

HARESH GHANSHYAMDAS MAKHIJA,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

D E R Per Bench : The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the ex parte order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short

JIGNESH SURESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,1,, THANE

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 271B of the income tax act, 1961 as there was reasonable cause and circumstances beyond applicant's control for the said failure as explained above considering section 2738 of the act.” 7. We heard the ld DR and perused the material on record. The AO reopened the assessment for the reason that the turnover of the assessee as declared

VISEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING )-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 28.05.2024 for AY 2016-17. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The honourable Commissioner

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), UNIT 7 , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

u/s 131 of the ACT and the provisions of section 272A(l)(c) are not attracted and AO be further directed to delete the penalty of Rs. 10,0007-. 5. Without prejudice to the above, since the Appellant has not acted deliberately in defiance of law nor was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard

ABB SWITZERLAND LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

D E R PER BENCH :- These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Years [A.Ys.] 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2180/Mum/2014, 940/Mum/2015, 970/Mum/2016

ABB SWITZERLAND LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST DIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

D E R PER BENCH :- These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Years [A.Ys.] 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2180/Mum/2014, 940/Mum/2015, 970/Mum/2016

ABB SWITZERLAND LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT (I) 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

D E R PER BENCH :- These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Years [A.Ys.] 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2180/Mum/2014, 940/Mum/2015, 970/Mum/2016

ABB SWITZERLAND LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

D E R PER BENCH :- These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Years [A.Ys.] 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2180/Mum/2014, 940/Mum/2015, 970/Mum/2016