DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

K. Road, known as Sumangla Mumbai-400020. Developers & Farms Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 17G, Vardhman C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECM7826P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

K. Road, known as Sumangla Mumbai-400020. Developers & Farms Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 17G, Vardhman C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECM7826P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

K. Road, known as Sumangla Mumbai-400020. Developers & Farms Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 17G, Vardhman C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECM7826P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

K. Road, known as Sumangla Mumbai-400020. Developers & Farms Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 17G, Vardhman C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECM7826P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- 9 Assessment Year :2013-14 National Laminate Corporation section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under ITA No.5140-43/Mum/2018 Lawmen

ROHIT LALIT SANGHAVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

penalty levied u/s 272(2)(k) of the Act. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the documents on record in the light of the rival contentions. Section 273B of the Act reads as under:- “ Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section(1)of section 271, section 271A section 271AA, section 271B

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

271, section 271AAB,] section 271F, 60[section 271FB,] section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; [(ja) an order of imposing

ITO - 1(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S FILM WAVES COMBINES P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACF2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Achal Sharma (DR) Assessee by: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The Revenue as well

MONICA K SAVLANI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Monica K. Savlani, Jcit 19(3) 201, Parishram, 3Rd Floor, R.No.301, बनाम/ 40 Nargis Dutt Rd, Pali Hill, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bandra(W) Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aisps5237P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri K.S. Chokshi (Ar) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vivekanand Ojha (Dr)

271, section 271A, (section 271AA,] section 271B [ section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub- section ('2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub-section (1) [or sub- section