RAHUL SAUNIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarrahul Saunik Ito Ward - 24(3)(1), 81 Santosh Tower, Mumbai Lokhandwala, 3Rd Cross Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai – 400 053 Pan/Gir No. Aslps2176G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jatin Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

reassessment proceedings. He also held that the income was 4 Rahul Saunik detected by the department through ITS/TDS data and would have escaped assessment but for reopening. He also noted that as per section 270A(2)(b), under-reporting is attracted where income assessed exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax in cases where no return is filed

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10. In view of the above discussion and considering facts in assessee's case for the year under consideration, we are of the view that the AO is not correct in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars whereas the assessee has merely made a claim which according to the revenue

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10. In view of the above discussion and considering facts in assessee's case for the year under consideration, we are of the view that the AO is not correct in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars whereas the assessee has merely made a claim which according to the revenue

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10. In view of the above discussion and considering facts in assessee's case for the year under consideration, we are of the view that the AO is not correct in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars whereas the assessee has merely made a claim which according to the revenue

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10. In view of the above discussion and considering facts in assessee's case for the year under consideration, we are of the view that the AO is not correct in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars whereas the assessee has merely made a claim which according to the revenue

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10. In view of the above discussion and considering facts in assessee's case for the year under consideration, we are of the view that the AO is not correct in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars whereas the assessee has merely made a claim which according to the revenue

ALRAMEEZ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

10) The tax payable in respect of the under-reported income shall be— (a) where no return of income has been furnished [or where return has been furnished for the first time under section 148] and the income has been assessed for the first time, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as increased by the maximum

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income.” 13. Therefore, as per the learned PCIT, since in the present case, the assessee did not file its original return of income and the income assessed 8 vide order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is greater than the maximum

DARBARI INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground, and the reassessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardarbari Industries Acit - 41(1)(1) 110, Champaklal 8Th Floor, Kautilya Udyog Bhavan, Sion Vs. Bhavan, C-41-43, Koliwada Road, Sion Avenue 3, Near Videsh (West), Mumbai – Bhavan, G-Block, Bkc, 400 022. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaafd3277E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2026

270A were also initiated. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). In the statement of facts, the assessee reiterated that it had furnished all necessary evidences to establish the genuineness of loans and had also sought cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon. It was further contended that the reassessment proceedings were invalid

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

270A of the Act, and the order of CIT (Appeal)/NFAC is not correct as per procedure in confirming the same, hence the same is requested to be set aside. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 272A

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A, section 271, section 271A,section 271J or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid sections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, upheld

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid sections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, upheld

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid sections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, upheld

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid sections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, upheld

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid sections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, upheld

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid sections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, upheld