MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

302 /Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 way of a common order. ITA No. 278/MUM/2025 [Assessment Year 2014-2015] 2. We would first take up appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 which is directed against the order, dated 28/11/2024, passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act, whereby

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

302 /Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 way of a common order. ITA No. 278/MUM/2025 [Assessment Year 2014-2015] 2. We would first take up appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 which is directed against the order, dated 28/11/2024, passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act, whereby

UNITED INK & VARNISH CO.P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg: (A.Y : 2010-11) M/S. United Ink & Varnish Vs. Dcit, Range-8(3), Mumbai Co. Pvt. Ltd., (Respondent) 27, Tejpal Scheme Road No. 5, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 57. Pan : Aaacu0086F (Appellant)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. In this appeal, assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal: 2 M/s. United Ink & Varnish Co. Pvt. Ltd. “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in facts and in law in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

M/S ASPHALT INDIA CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 20(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2005-06)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. In this appeal, although the assessee has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, but the solitary grievance is against the action of CIT(A) in 2 M/s. Asphalt India Corporation sustaining the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to an addition

ITO WD 4(4), THANE vs. VIDYAVARDHINI TRUST, THANE

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

u/s 271(1)(c), while disposing appeal against the quantum order. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) did not assume jurisdiction to levy penalty. 3.10. It is further noted that since no such issue was raised and no addition or disallowance was made by the AO in the assessment order, therefore, while initiating the penalty proceedings in the assessment order

ITO WD 4(4), THANE vs. VIDYAVARDHINI TRUST, THANE

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

u/s 271(1)(c), while disposing appeal against the quantum order. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) did not assume jurisdiction to levy penalty. 3.10. It is further noted that since no such issue was raised and no addition or disallowance was made by the AO in the assessment order, therefore, while initiating the penalty proceedings in the assessment order

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

section 40(a)(ia) 21,30,302/- 5 Prior Period Expenses disallowed u/s 43B Rs. 23,92,292/- Total Rs. 59,08,002/- 7.8 The AO has imposed a minimum penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- u/s 271

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

section 40(a)(ia) 21,30,302/- 5 Prior Period Expenses disallowed u/s 43B Rs. 23,92,292/- Total Rs. 59,08,002/- 7.8 The AO has imposed a minimum penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- u/s 271

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

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 Assessee by : Shri Anil Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 01/04/2025 Date of Order - 03/04/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PRABHODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

302/- Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) 5. Prior Period Expenses disallowed u/s 43B Rs. 23,92,292/- Total Rs. 59,08,002/- 7.8 The AO has imposed a minimum penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- u/s 271

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PABODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

302/- Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) 5. Prior Period Expenses disallowed u/s 43B Rs. 23,92,292/- Total Rs. 59,08,002/- 7.8 The AO has imposed a minimum penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- u/s 271

AJAY KUMAR BAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Ajay Kumar Baid Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1) 1St Floor, Chandra Mahal, Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Princess Street, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue P.A. No. Aaapb5350N

u/s. 144 of the Act can be decided only on the basis of the materials gathered by him and not on the basis of any materials that are later produced by the assessee. There cannot be a procedure where the best judgment of the A.O. is subject to discretion of the assessee to produce evidence/material at the appellate stage

GOODBUILD (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-51, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Goodbuild (India) P. Ltd Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) 9-B, 302 God Gift Tower, M.R Circle 51 Vs. Chowk Hill Road, Bandra (W) R. No. 619, Aayakar Bhavna, M.K. Rd, Mumbai-20 Pan No.Aaccg1455G Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 16-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 24-05-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

302 God Gift Tower, M.R Circle 51 Vs. Chowk Hill Road, Bandra (W) R. No. 619, Aayakar Bhavna, M.K. Rd, Mumbai-20 PAN No.AACCG1455G Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Assessee by Revenue by .. Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, DR Date of hearing .. 16-05-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 24-05-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH

DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI vs. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

302 ITR 173(Guj. HC) and in the case of Smt Prabhadevi S Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 0001(Bom. HC) and in the case of Tek Ram(Dead Through LRS) v. CIT (2013) 093 DTR 0350(SC) 14. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon

SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

302 ITR 173(Guj. HC) and in the case of Smt Prabhadevi S Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 0001(Bom. HC) and in the case of Tek Ram(Dead Through LRS) v. CIT (2013) 093 DTR 0350(SC) 14. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon

STEELFAB BLDG SYSTEM,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathasteelfab Building System Vs. Acit-31(3) 1St Floor, C-13 Building 101-A, Poonam Chambers B 7Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaxfs5995B (Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the penalty. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 Your Appellants further submits that the addition of Interest in the A.Y. 2012-13 and the same amount of Income has been offered in [he subsequent Year A.Y. 20I3-I4 amounts to double addition

ACIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINOD KUMAR ANAND, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2003-04 Acit-1(2)(2), Shri Vinod Kumar Anand, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, 1, Mistry Court, 208, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Dinshaw Vacha Road, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaapa9763A

u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) without appreciating the fact that the assessee obtained loan of Rs.30 lakh in cash in contravention of section 269 SS of the Act for which no explanation/reasonable cause was adduced, therefore, the penalty was rightly levied. 2. During hearing, Shri Rajat Mittal, ld. counsel for the assessee, claimed that

DCIT CIRCLE-1, KALYAN vs. M/S AHUJA SYNFAB PRIVATE LIMITED, THANE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit Circle – 1 V. M/S. Ahuja Synfab Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza D-6 & 7 & B-27-32 Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada Raj Rajeshwari Compound Kalyan (W), Mumbai – 421 301 Sonale Village Bhinwadi – 421 302 Pan:Aaeca9496M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naresh R. Gayvin Department By : Shri Bheraram

302 PAN:AAECA9496M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Naresh R. Gayvin Department by : Shri Bheraram Date of Hearing : 04.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated