SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

PUSHPA JADHAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), KALYAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 201@Eaqcbz@2023 ¼Fu-Oa- 2011&12½ Pushpa Jadhav 2004, Clover Building, Everest World, Opp. Bayer, India, Kolshet, Thane-400 601 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Acopj6199H Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2) ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Kalyan-421 306

TDS has duly been deducted on the rental in income and paid to the government exchequer by the deductor. Thus, no penalty u/s 271

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

TDS was duly deducted from all his incomes (Salary and Bank interest), there is no tax default on his part. b. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law by charging a penalty of Rs. 6,53,800 u/s 271

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HEM BHATTAD , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separatel initiated separately. 3)regarding consultancy charges payment, assessee did not deduct 3)regarding consultancy charges payment, assessee did not deduct 3)regarding consultancy charges payment, assessee did not deduct and pay tds

HEM BHATTAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separatel initiated separately. 3)regarding consultancy charges payment, assessee did not deduct 3)regarding consultancy charges payment, assessee did not deduct 3)regarding consultancy charges payment, assessee did not deduct and pay tds

MS. KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C), 271(1)(b) and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03 2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify and delete any of the above ground.” Ground no 1: Illegal assumption of jurisdiction. a) In the facts and circumstances

KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C), 271(1)(b) and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03 2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify and delete any of the above ground.” Ground no 1: Illegal assumption of jurisdiction. a) In the facts and circumstances