KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 32(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

u/s 54F Investment in a new residential house property -Flat no. 1001, Estonia B Kandivli, Mumbai vide registered agreement for sale dt. 29.03.2011 with M/s. Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Restricted to the extent of capital gains Rs. 1,40,18,317/- ----------------------- (v) Taxable long term capital gains NIL ================ 17. The learned counsel further submitted that the exemption under section 54F

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE-32(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed in terms indicated above

u/s 54F\nInvestment in a new residential house\nproperty -Flat no. 1001, Estonia B\nKandivli, Mumbai\nvide registered agreement for sale\ndt. 29.03.2011 with M/s. Hiranandani\nConstructions Pvt. Ltd.\nRestricted to the extent of capital gains Rs. 1,40,18,317/-\n(v) Taxable long term capital gains NIL\n17. The learned counsel further submitted that the\nexemption under section

NITIN GOPINATH BHOIR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

penalty of Rs.15,14,231/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n2) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any ground(s) of appeal\nbefore or during the course of hearing of the appeal.\n6. We have heard Ld. AR who argued on behalf of the assessee that all\nthe particulars furnished were correct and accurate

ABDUL NAYAB SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MATURMANDIR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

271(1)(c) and also the charging of interest u/s 234. As theground\nregarding the initiation of penalty is beingoffered on the same. Similarly\nthe charging of interest is consequential no comment is being offered on the\nsame.\n7.\nThe appeal is dismissed.”\n12.\nWe heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in\nthe records. Both the parties

DHIRAJKUMAR SOHANLAL THUKRAL ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2013-14 Dhirajkumar Sohanlal Thukral Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 33/34, Garden View Apartment, Tax, Circle 17(1) Mumbai. Road No. 29, Sion (E), (Respondent) Mumbai 400 022. Pan : Aabpt5208Q (Appellant)

Section 54F Rs. 70,42,384/- Total Taxable Capital Gain= Rs. 4,86,87,976/- As the assessee has already offered Rs. 2,33,31,286/- as LTCG for purpose of taxation, addition of Rs.2,53,56,690/- is made to the total income under the head Income from Capital gain. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act be dropped. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of the Ld. AO in the levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident. She did not file her return of income

JOCKY CAMILO FERNANDES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaljocky Camilo Fernandes Dd Thakur Wadi, Near Chawl No.03, Agar Bazar, Dadar (W) Mumbai-400 028 Pan: Aadpf5163G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-18 (2) (4) Mumbai-12 ..... Respondent

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee Individual filed its return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 1,44,352/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act. During the year under consideration assessee had income from Business from M/s. Glocaf 3 Jocky Camilo

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Penalty provision under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 8. On perusal of the grounds, it is noticed that ground no. 2, 3 & 4 pertains to considering the date of acquisition

RITA SUNIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) on the grounds of the variance in the calculation of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.76,19,860/- by the assessee against the value of Rs. 68,50,486/- which was arrived at by the assessing officer thereby treating this variance as concealment/furnishing of inappropriate particulars of income. 4. The assessee carves leave

SUNIL AMRITLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) on the grounds of the variance in the calculation of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.76,19,860/- by the assessee against the value of Rs. 68,50,486/- which was arrived at by the assessing officer thereby treating this variance as concealment/furnishing of inappropriate particulars of income. 4. The assessee carves leave

MAYANK KISHOR TEJURA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-19(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Us In The Following Manner:- 1.Overseas Impex Pvt. Ltd (Oipl) Was A Tenant Of A Residential Flat Being Flat No. 15, 4Th Floor, Park View Building, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400 006 Since 1965. The Company Had Been The Tenant By Way Of Leave & License Agreement Dated 1-5-1965 Between Mr. Amrit Sagar Puri (Landlord) & The Company (Tenant).

section 54F of the Act in respect of the Long Term Capital Gains on transfer of the right of occupancy by way of extinguishment of the said rights. 4. However, the ld. AO held that the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- is taxable in the hands of the assessee as ‘income from other sources’. The reason being that assessee

LALITADEVI GIRIRAJ KISHORE MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

Penalty Unit u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Applicant then immediately appointed a new CA who checked the e-filing portal and noticed that the said notices were indeed issued & remained to be complied with. On further probing, he noticed that the ld.Addl / Jt.CIT has dismissed the quantum appeal for want of prosecution vide order dt.28.06.2024