DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

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

269T of the Act. With the assessee having failed to furnish the required information, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax proceeded to confirm the penalty in the sum of Rs. 17,90,000. * * ** 6. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the Assessing Officer has no power to initiate the penalty proceedings under section

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 have not been challenged on behalf of the Assessee. The appeals before the Tribunal are being pursued by the mother of the Appellant being his legal heir and duly constituted attorney of other ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

269T of the Act. With the\nassessee having failed to furnish the required information, the\nAdditional Commissioner of Income-tax proceeded to confirm the\npenalty in the sum of Rs.17,90,000.\n*\n*\n**\n6. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned senior standing counsel\nappearing for the Revenue, submitted that the Assessing Officer\nhas no power to initiate the penalty proceedings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX vs. DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

269T of the Act. With the\nassessee having failed to furnish the required information, the\nAdditional Commissioner of Income-tax proceeded to confirm the\npenalty in the sum of Rs.17,90,000.\n*\n*\n**\n6. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned senior standing counsel\nappearing for the Revenue, submitted that the Assessing Officer\nhas no power to initiate the penalty proceedings

JIGNA ASHUTOSH BHATT ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 33(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on merits

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarito Ward-32(2)(1) Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt Kautilya Bhavan, I-1434, Govardhan Nagar Bandra Kurla Bldg. No. 4, Opp. Poinsur Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Gymkhana, Kandivali Mumbai-400 051 (West), Mumbai-400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aiypb4411G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan L. Vajani, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2026

reassessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2018, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 39,55,700/-. Penalty proceedings under sections 269SS, 269T

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE -13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated\n24.12.2018. In the same reassessment, ld. Assessing Officer had al-\nleged that there are certain transactions of loan taken and repayment\nmade, which were carried out by the assessee by means other than by\nway of account pay cheque/bank draft, therefore there is a violation\nu/s. 269SS and 269T

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 24.12.2018. In the same reassessment, ld. Assessing Officer had alleged that there are certain transactions of loan taken and repayment made, which were carried out by the assessee by means other than by way of account pay cheque/bank draft, therefore there is a violation u/s. 269SS and 269T

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE -13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 24.12.2018. In the same reassessment, ld. Assessing Officer had al- leged that there are certain transactions of loan taken and repayment made, which were carried out by the assessee by means other than by way of account pay cheque/bank draft, therefore there is a violation u/s. 269SS and 269T

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 24.12.2018. In the same reassessment, ld. Assessing Officer had al- leged that there are certain transactions of loan taken and repayment made, which were carried out by the assessee by means other than by way of account pay cheque/bank draft, therefore there is a violation u/s. 269SS and 269T