SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 273B of the Act and hence the penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F may be deleted.” 4. In ITA. No. 708/Mum./2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee challenging penalty order levying penalty u/s 271

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 273B of the Act and hence the penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F may be deleted.” 4. In ITA. No. 708/Mum./2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee challenging penalty order levying penalty u/s 271

INDU BISHT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 273B of the Act, we have no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

u/s 142(1) of the Act vide dated 28-10-2022,22-12-2022, 10-01- 2023 and 25- 01-2023 for the A.Y 2015-16. Demand notice is attached herewith.” 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that though the first 4 notices were not responded

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 PALGHAR, THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-1 PALGHAR , MUMBAI

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -1 PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

271(1)(b) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

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

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

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

271F were also initiated for failure to file return under section 139. 6. Thereafter, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied vide order dated 29.09.2022, wherein the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,51,564/- holding that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income by not filing the return under section 139 and by offering income

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere into the well reasoned orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). Even before us, no new facts or has been placed on record in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the assesse stands dismissed

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere into the well reasoned orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). Even before us, no new facts or has been placed on record in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the assesse stands dismissed

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere into the well reasoned orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). Even before us, no new facts or has been placed on record in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the assesse stands dismissed

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere into the well reasoned orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). Even before us, no new facts or has been placed on record in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the assesse stands dismissed

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

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