KARL PESTONJI KERAWALLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blekarl Pestonji Kerawalla V. I.T.O. – 11(2)(4) Kerawalla Chamber (4Th Floor) Aayakar Bhavan, 25, P.J. Ramchandani Marg., M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 039 Mumbai-400 020

271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdiction error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” In Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra), the assessee (Sky Light Hospitality LLP) who had taken over on 13.05.2016 and acquired

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

271(1)( c) holds that the amount added is deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. The exception to the Explanation has not been made out. Thus penalty is attracted. 17 I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 16. At the fag end of the appellate proceedings, the Ld AR has challenged the penalty further on the ground that

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

271(1)( c) holds that the amount added is deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. The exception to the Explanation has not been made out. Thus penalty is attracted. 17 I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 16. At the fag end of the appellate proceedings, the Ld AR has challenged the penalty further on the ground that

AJANTA PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

292B are not applicable on the facts of the present case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("herein after referred to as "CIT(A)") erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.7,36,12,079/- under section 271

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty. In this case, facts stated supra clearly establish that the notice issued under section 274 read with 271 of the Act is defective and, therefore, we find it difficult to hold that the learned AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to passed

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty. In this case, facts stated supra clearly establish that the notice issued under section 274 read with 271 of the Act is defective and, therefore, we find it difficult to hold that the learned AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to passed

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdiction error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” In Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra), the assessee (Sky Light Hospitality LLP) who had taken over on 13.05.2016 and acquired

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdiction error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” In Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra), the assessee (Sky Light Hospitality LLP) who had taken over on 13.05.2016 and acquired

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdiction error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” In Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra), the assessee (Sky Light Hospitality LLP) who had taken over on 13.05.2016 and acquired

SHAH JAIN ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 24 & 26, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S. Shah Jain Associates, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bahadur Manjil, 2-C, 2Nd Income Tax, Central Circle 24 Floor, S. A. Brevli Road, Store & 26, Mumbai Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aasfs 7448G Appellant .. Respondent

section 271 dated 12-03-2012 was issued, whereby the AO referred to the assessment order passed on 22-12-2009, i. e. order u/s 153A r. w. s. 143(3), which has been stated to be by mistake by the learned CIT (A), who has held that the same is rectifiable u/s 292B and, therefore, the penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI vs. PBA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by assessee is allowed and appeal by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, Central Circle- 36, M/S Pba Infrastructure Ltd. Room No. 11, Aayakar Bhavan, 611/3, Prakash, V.N. Purav Marg, Vs. M.K. Marg, M. K. Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacp7564K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Pba Infrastructure Ltd. Asst. Cit, Central Circle- 36, 611/3, Prakash, V.N. Purav Marg, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400071. M.K. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacp7564K (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) instead of levying penalty u/s 271AA of the Act. The additional ground of appeal of assessee was allowed by AO by invoking the provisions of section 292B

SHIVKUMAR DEVIDUTT SARAF HUF,PUNE vs. ITO WD 14(2)2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, Huf Ito, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaahs9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2010 and 4.12.2013 is bad in law inasmuch as neither of these two notices specify for which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, and consequently, the impugned penalty order is also bad in law. The appellant, therefore, prays that

DCIT CEN CIR 2(3), MUMBAI vs. DHAVAL D SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Dhaval D. Shah Income, Central Smag House, 1St Floor, Vs. Circle2(3), Old Cgo Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Parle (W) Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400010 Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 08/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dhaval D. Shah Dy. Commissioner Of Smag House, 1St Floor, Income, Central Vs. Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Circle2(3), Old Cgo Parle (W) Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400010 Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. M.P. Lohia, Ar Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdiction error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” In Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra), the assessee (Sky Light Hospitality LLP) who had taken over on 13.05.2016 and acquired

M.LAKHAMSI& CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.\nThe AO levied penalty Rs.47,74,794/- in respect of the disallowance of\nRs.38,30,978/-on account of Foreign Exchange Loss and in respect of\nthe addition of Rs.1,72,92,564/- on account of alleged undervaluation of\nstock.It is noticed that penalty was levied on account of certain\ndisallowances made

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

u/s 274 read with section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Both Notice of demand and penalty proceedings are further followed by subsequent communication. Therefore, it is merely not an error but for all practical purposes, the ld AO passed the final assessment order instead of Draft Assessment order. In penultimate paragraph also ld AO mentions section

SHEETAL DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Sheetal Diamonds Ltd. V. D.C.I.T Range – 8(3) Off No. 8, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sitaram Niwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai-400 020 J.S.S. Road, Opera House Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aabcs 3005 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satish R. Mody Department By : Shri A.B. Koli

271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdiction error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” In Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra), the assessee (Sky Light Hospitality LLP) who had taken over on 13.05.2016 and acquired

MUKON CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1) of the Act which is being agitated by the assessee mainly on\nthe ground that the AO while initiating penalty proceedings, did not\nstrike off the relevant limb in the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act\nso as to categorically give a finding that the assessee was either defaulter\nfor concealment of income or for filing

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.AMPRO FORMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Ampro Forms Private Limited Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor 501-A, Vaibhav Apartment Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jambli Galli, Borivali (West) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aadca4479K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : None

271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdiction error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” 6 M/s. Ampro Forms Private Limited In Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra), the assessee (Sky Light Hospitality

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as the “Act”) amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for non-compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the non-compliance was because of the fact that the appellant legal heir was not aware of such notices as such notice