PREMJI BHURLAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RANG 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The 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. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

273(b), the Assessee has rendered itself liable to penalty under Section 271D of the Act, for violating the provisions of 269SS of the Act. 4 Premji Bhurlal Gala 10. The Assessing Officer thus ultimately, on being satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271D, levied a penalty of Rs. 64,25,000/- under

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

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

273/- on account of ad hoc expenses disallowance. 3. The Assessing Officer in the Assessment order also initiated the penalty proceeding for concealing the income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and thereafter issued a notice dated 13.03.2013 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of the particulars of income ‘OR’ furnishing inaccurate particulars

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

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

u/s 271 G of the IT Act levied by the TPO is confirmed. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are Dismissed.” 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee though did not respond to the first two notices issued by the TPO subsequently responded to the notices and filed all the relevant details before the TPO. The ld. AR further submitted

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

LORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

271(1)(c) of the Act, again, on 29-12-2012, whose copy has also been placed on record. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order P a g e | 11 Lord India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 10(2)(1) dated 27-02-2012 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act determining total income at ₹ 156.73 crore

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. Year 2017-18dated 30.03.2022. From the facts of the case, it is ascertained that you had not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. The return was filed only after the notice u/s.148 was issued. In response thereto, you filed the return

GLOBAL HOSPITALITY LICENSING SARL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RANGE - 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhglobal Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Licensing Sarl Income Tax (I.T.) C/O Marriot Hotels India Range-2(3)(2) Private Limited 303A, Room No. 1702, 17Th 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Floor, Air India Building, Hiranandani Business Nariman Point, Park, Sahar Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg5657K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Paras Savla Pratik Poddar Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das

271(1)(c) of the Act, again, on 29-12-2012, whose copy has also been placed on record. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 27-02-2012 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act determining total income at ₹ 156.73 crore. 8. From the above factual matrix, it is seen that the AO passed the draft order

VAIBHAV BHARGAVA,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. Year 2017-18 dated 30.03.2022. From the facts of the case, it is ascertained that you had not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017- 18. The return was filed only after the notice u/s.148 was issued. In response thereto, you filed the return

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

JITENDRA BABULAL SHAH-HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaljitendra Babulal Shah Vs. Ito – 19(2)(1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, 257-263 Shanti Sadan, Tardevo Road, D B Marg, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabhj9591E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Mayank Kothari.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Vranda U Matkari.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi /Cit(A) Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

u/s 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal as under: 1(a) The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in not referring the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) for levy of penalty and therefore the notice issued by the Assessing Officer itself

M/S. BRIGHTSTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act, again, on 29-12-2012, whose copy has also been placed on record. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 27-02-2012 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act determining total income at ₹ 156.73 crore. 8. From the above factual matrix, it is seen that the AO passed the draft order

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

u/s 293(I)(d) of the Companies Act, 1956 in due course. 9. Further, learned Counsel explain that in view of the above amendment claim of deduction of interest and finance charges of Rs. 4,04,88,60,303/- was no longer necessary since the very liability in respect of which deduction was claimed by the assessee was also taken