RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

penalty was levied by DCIT 22(2), Mumbai under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide letter dated 18-06-2011. 2. The first issue in ITA No. 3454/Mum/2012 for the AY 2004-05 of Revenue’s appeal is against the order of CIT(A) in holding that the surplus sale of land taxable as capital gains. For this

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

penalty was levied by DCIT 22(2), Mumbai under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide letter dated 18-06-2011. 2. The first issue in ITA No. 3454/Mum/2012 for the AY 2004-05 of Revenue’s appeal is against the order of CIT(A) in holding that the surplus sale of land taxable as capital gains. For this

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

penalty was levied by DCIT 22(2), Mumbai under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide letter dated 18-06-2011. 2. The first issue in ITA No. 3454/Mum/2012 for the AY 2004-05 of Revenue’s appeal is against the order of CIT(A) in holding that the surplus sale of land taxable as capital gains. For this

DCIT CC 4(4)CEN RG 4, MUMBAI vs. VEENA MILAN DALAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainveena Milan Dalal, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Flr., Dalal Street, Mumbai 400 023 Pan: Aabpd 4089R ... Appellant Vs.

271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition of Rs.21,31,720/- in connection with the capital gains arising on account of transfer of property in Goa in the year under consideration at paras 10 to 14 of the impugned order. It is submitted that this penalty would not now survive for consideration in view of the decision

VEENA MILAN DALAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-II) CR 7, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainveena Milan Dalal, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Flr., Dalal Street, Mumbai 400 023 Pan: Aabpd 4089R ... Appellant Vs.

271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition of Rs.21,31,720/- in connection with the capital gains arising on account of transfer of property in Goa in the year under consideration at paras 10 to 14 of the impugned order. It is submitted that this penalty would not now survive for consideration in view of the decision

V.N. KARBHATKAR,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Shri V.N. Karbhatkar Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4) 4-5, Chapel Avenue Mumbai Vs. Chapel Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 Pan – Aacpk2651B Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is premature.” 4. Ground No. 1 – Admission of Additional Evidence 4.1 In this ground, the assessee contends that the learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting or considering the additional evidence put forth. We have heard the rival contentions put forth and perused and carefully considered the material on record

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

53A is bad in law and it be quashed. law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

53A is bad in law and it be quashed. law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

53A is bad in law and it be quashed. law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

53A is bad in law and it be quashed. law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

53A is bad in law and it be quashed. law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

53A is bad in law and it be quashed. law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

53A is bad in law and it be quashed. law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. ITA No.3595/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2011-2012] 2. First we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 against the Order, dated 15/04/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD , MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. ITA No.3595/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2011-2012] 2. First we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 against the Order, dated 15/04/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre

SKYLINE GREATHILLS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is consequential in nature and Ground No. 5 is general, does not warrants separate adjudication. 17. In result the appeal of assessee in ITA 3466/M/2025 stands allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observation. ITA 3904/MUM/2025 revenues appeal 18. Ground No.1 : regarding addition made under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE GREATHILLS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is consequential in nature and Ground No. 5 is general, does not warrants separate adjudication. 17. In result the appeal of assessee in ITA 3466/M/2025 stands allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observation. ITA 3904/MUM/2025 revenues appeal 18. Ground No.1 : regarding addition made under section

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) has been challenged. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2005-06 (ITA No.1422/Mum/2010), wherein, the assessee has filed application under Rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah 1963 by placing reliance upon