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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act , by holding as under:- I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 “ 4. I have considered the submissions of the assessee. First issue related to rejection of books of account and estimation of income. During the course of Search and Seizure action it was notices that the assessee did not maintain proper record regarding inward, outward, production

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

69A of the Act being unexplained cash loan received from M/s Evergreen Enterprises. 6. The Assessing Officer simultaneously also initiated the penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c), 271 (1)(b), and 271D of the Act. 7. The Assessing Officer in the penalty proceedings u/s

VINEET THAKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. During this proceeding, in response to show cause notices for imposing penalty issued on various dates, the assessee did not make any compliance. Therefore, the AO in ex parte order concluded that the assessee had committed a default within

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LYKA LABS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

u/s 47(xiv) on the ground that the same was reflected as Capital Account balance of the appellant. 4.5 The appellant has submitted that the penalty is levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and with the above facts and submissions it cannot be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant has also relied

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JASVINDER KALYAN SALUJA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act shall not be initiated for the same. 271(1)(c) of the Act shall not be initiated for the same.” 4. On further appeal, the assessee challenged validity of the On further appeal, the assessee challenged validity of the On further appeal, the assessee challenged validity of the reassessment proceedings

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c), reasoning that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming expenditure that was not allowable. The assessee contended that the salary expenses were genuine and duly recorded in the books of account. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was at best a difference of opinion as to the allowability, and could not by itself invite

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c), reasoning that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming expenditure that was not allowable. The assessee contended that the salary expenses were genuine and duly recorded in the books of account. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was at best a difference of opinion as to the allowability, and could not by itself invite

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c), reasoning that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming expenditure that was not allowable. The assessee contended that the salary expenses were genuine and duly recorded in the books of account. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was at best a difference of opinion as to the allowability, and could not by itself invite

M/S. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 271(1)(c) was a non specific notice, not specifying the charge of 'Concealment' or 'Inaccurate Particulars' but both. Notice bad in law, no penalty ought to have been confirmed. 5. Appellant pray your honour's leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal at the time hearing or before.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration

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) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-1 PALGHAR , MUMBAI

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) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

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) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

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) and 271F. 8. Subsequently, separate penalty orders were passed. Each of these orders proceeded on the footing that statutory notices were duly served and that there was deliberate non-compliance. 9. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A). In the appeals, the appellant, being legal heir Shri Rakesh Jain, contended that Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain expired

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.”\n2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: -\n“Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

SHRI FRANCIS THOMAS ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) CC- 2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1732/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Francis Thomas Jcit (Osd)-Cc-2(3) बनाम/ 803, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building 29-C, D-1, Aravali Apartments, Sec-52 Noida, Up-203 303 Pratishtha Bhawan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No.: Adgpt-3709-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2000/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit -Cc-2(3) Shri Francis Thomas 803, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building बनाम/ 29-C, D-1, Aravali Apartments Pratishtha Bhawan, M.K. Road Sec-52 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Noida, Up-203 303 Pan No.: Adgpt-3709-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 06/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

69A. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order by observing as under: - Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB/271(1)(c) are initiated separately. 3.3 Upon further appeal against quantum order, the Ld. CIT(A) substantively confirmed the addition in the hands of the assessee and consequently, deleted the addition made in the hands of St. Xavier Education Trust. This order

KALPANA DILIP MEHTA AS LEGAL HEIR OF DILIP D MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were separately initiated for concealment of income. However, till the date of passing of this order no satisfactory explanation is furnished by the Assessee. 8. In this connection, it will be appropriate to mention the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

271(1)(c)\nAY 2017-18\nu/s 271AAB\nAY 2018-19\nu/s 271AAB\n(Amt in INR)\nTotal\n4,08,99,387\n2,42,17,906\n6,51,17,293\nAddition made u/s 143(3)\n1 Corporate Guarantee commission\n@0.50%\n(ITAT-4,08,99,387/-) (ITAT-2,42,17,906/-)\n2 Provision for diminution in value of stock

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

271(1)(c)\nAY 2017-18\nu/s 271AAB\nAY 2018-19\nu/s 271AAB\n(Amt in INR)\nTotal\nAddition made u/s 143(3)\n\n1\nCorporate Guarantee commission\n@0.50%\n4,08,99,387\n2,42,17,906\n6,51,17,293\n(ITAT-4,08,99,387/-) (ITAT-2,42,17,906/-)\n\n2\nProvision for diminution in value

KUNAL NIKUNJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT CIT RANGE-16(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kunal Nikunj Shah, 501, Joint Commissioner Of Gitanjali Garden, 68E, Napean Vs. Income Tax Range-16(2), Sea Road, Rungta Lane, Mumbai. Mumbai-400006 Pan No. Aacps8482N Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of Rs.2,74,007/-. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said penalty. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the quantum addition of Rs.2,74,007/- made by the AO has since been deleted by the Tribunal and therefore, the penalty of Rs.92,233/- levied by the AO does