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

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 , 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

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

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

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

MAA RUPADEVI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA MARYADI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2015-16 Maa Rupadevi Nagari Sahakari Income Tax Officer, Path Sanstha Maryadit, Ward-1(1), Pathebahadur Chawl, Vs. Thane. Tekdi Road No.33, Roopadevi, Wagle Estate, Thane (West), Maharashtra-400606. Pan : Aactm2530R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Satish Kadam For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

section 69A of the Act and at the same time, there is a mistake in calculation of tax and, therefore, merely the fact that there is a mistake in calculation of tax, it cannot be held that the penalty u/s. 271

DEV SHARDA DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 69A in respect of 1,97,00,000 to additional amounts allegedly paid to 6 Mr. Kishore Gulati Addition of Rs.15,00,000 made under section 69C 27. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,35,00,000 towards the payments made to Mr. Kishore Gulati in respect of Shantidoot Co-operative Housing Society project based on the notings

DE vs. HARDA DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAIVS.ITO 9(1)3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 69A in respect of 1,97,00,000 to additional amounts allegedly paid to 6 Mr. Kishore Gulati Addition of Rs.15,00,000 made under section 69C 27. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,35,00,000 towards the payments made to Mr. Kishore Gulati in respect of Shantidoot Co-operative Housing Society project based on the notings

DE vs. HARDHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAIVS.ITO 9 (1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 69A in respect of 1,97,00,000 to additional amounts allegedly paid to 6 Mr. Kishore Gulati Addition of Rs.15,00,000 made under section 69C 27. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,35,00,000 towards the payments made to Mr. Kishore Gulati in respect of Shantidoot Co-operative Housing Society project based on the notings

DE vs. HARDHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. ,MUMBAIVS.ITO 9 (1)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 69A in respect of 1,97,00,000 to additional amounts allegedly paid to 6 Mr. Kishore Gulati Addition of Rs.15,00,000 made under section 69C 27. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,35,00,000 towards the payments made to Mr. Kishore Gulati in respect of Shantidoot Co-operative Housing Society project based on the notings