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 ()

271 has levied penalty 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

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 ()

271 has levied penalty 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

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 ()

271 has levied penalty 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

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 ()

271 has levied penalty 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

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

273B. v. Penalty Proceedings Independent of Assessment:- It is well settled in law that penalty u/s 271D is independent of the outcome of the quantum assessment. Even if an appeal is pending against the addition, the existence of a loan/deposit accepted in cash can separately attract penalty under 271D. In this case, the AO has clearly established the fact

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

M/S SANGEETA RUSHIKESH DOIPHODE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Sangeeta Rushikesh Ito-15(3)(1), Doiphode, Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, 8/158, Navrang Society, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chaitanya Nagar, Mumbai, Mumbai-400020. Santacruz (East) S.O. 400055. Pan No. Achpd 5219 R Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(b). 5.4 The submissions of the appella 5.4 The submissions of the appellant has been examined and found that it nt has been examined and found that it is not only the show cause notice that was issued on 31/03/2022 but is not only the show cause notice that was issued on 31/03/2022 but is not only

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

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 ()

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) ignoring the provisions of section 273B of Income tax act which clearly states that no 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

273B of the Act, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for its failure if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. However, the assessee has not submitted any reason for failure to furnish the information as sought by the TPO u/s 92D(3) of the IT Act within a period of 60 days

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

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

273B of the Act in its true spirit. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify and or withdraw any of the above Grounds of Appeal, which are prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the addition of INR 1,50,000/- being Penalty imposed u/s 271B for non-audit of books

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: the Assessing Officer to set out his defence against levy of penalty?." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a public Limited company engaged, inter alia, in manufactured and sale of cement, filed original return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–2012 on 30/11/2011. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 27/11/2012, which was selected for regular scrutiny.

u/s 271(1) (C) of the IT, Act, 1961.” (Emphasis Supplied) 15. On perusal of above, we find that the Assessing Officer had failed to appreciate that the amount of INR.3.98 Crores included Mine Reclamation Expenses of INR.2.18 Crores actually incurred during the relevant previous year. Further, there was no discussion on the explanation furnished by the Assessee. Similarly, while

NIYATI SUTARIA JEMES ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailniyati Sutaria James, 302 Parimal Premises, 17Th Road, Khar West, Mumbai – 400052 ............... Appellant Pan : Ahipj7649B V/S Ito, Ward – 23(2)(1), Piramal Chambers, Parel ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

penalty and appellate proceedings. The appellant prays that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 271(1)(b), should be held to be bad in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the non-receipt of notice u/s 142(1) as a reasonable cause u/s 273B of the Act, for non-compliance

SHREE YADVESH TRANSPORT CO . PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

section 273B and there was no malafide intention on behalf of the assessee to evade any tax as there is no 7 ITA No.6877/mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 Shree Yadvesh Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. loss to the revenue since the assessee has paid taxes u/s115JB of the Act. 5.3. On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that the order passed

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRANSLANDS INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Translands Income-Tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. Jn-3-14-5, Asshirwad Chs, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent

u/s. 2710 of Act". 7 DCIT vs. M/s Translands Infrastructure Developers P Ltd However, it was further held that reasonable cause given by assessee should be considered. Hon'ble High Court took note of the fact that Revenue has not shown that transaction was not bonafide transaction and was made with a view to evade tax. It was held that

DEEJAY STOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2014-15] & [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deejay Stocks Dcit 4(2)(1) Private Limited Erstwhile Dcit 401, Shangrilla Apt., 12(2)(2), L. T. Road, Aayakar Bhava, Borivali (West), Vs. Maharishi Karve Mumbai- 400092. Road, Pan: Aadc6404H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 271(1) (b) r.w.s.273B of the act. 4.2. On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative strongly supporting the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) submitted that the Assessing Officer has given sufficient time for the assessee to appear for hearing. The assessee neither appeared nor sought any adjournment, therefore, the Ld.AO was right in levying

DEEJAY STOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2014-15] & [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deejay Stocks Dcit 4(2)(1) Private Limited Erstwhile Dcit 401, Shangrilla Apt., 12(2)(2), L. T. Road, Aayakar Bhava, Borivali (West), Vs. Maharishi Karve Mumbai- 400092. Road, Pan: Aadc6404H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 271(1) (b) r.w.s.273B of the act. 4.2. On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative strongly supporting the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) submitted that the Assessing Officer has given sufficient time for the assessee to appear for hearing. The assessee neither appeared nor sought any adjournment, therefore, the Ld.AO was right in levying