DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN DIAMOND COMPANY PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 166/Mum/2024 is dismissed

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

9) of the Act in order to treat the same as under-reporting as a consequence of mis-reporting. 5.5. Hence, it is pertinent to refer to sub section (2) of section 270A of the Act which mentions the scenarios under which a person shall be considered to have under- reporting of income; the relevant extract of the same

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

9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d) recording of any false entry in the books of account; (e) failure to record any receipt

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

E R 2 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited Per Bench: These appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of income tax (appeals)-56, Mumbai (in short "CIT(A)") dated 29.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 and dated

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

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

E R 2 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited Per Bench: These appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of income tax (appeals)-56, Mumbai (in short "CIT(A)") dated 29.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 and dated

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

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

E R 2 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited Per Bench: These appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of income tax (appeals)-56, Mumbai (in short "CIT(A)") dated 29.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 and dated

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

E R 2 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited Per Bench: These appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of income tax (appeals)-56, Mumbai (in short "CIT(A)") dated 29.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 and dated

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

E R 2 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited Per Bench: These appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of income tax (appeals)-56, Mumbai (in short "CIT(A)") dated 29.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 and dated

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

e) the amount of deemed total income assessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been filed; (f) the amount of deemed total income reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case

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

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

e-filing portal for filing of Return of Income. The submission of the assessee has been reproduced here for reference: \"The company had bid for a 90 years leasehold land of Indore Development Authority (IDA) situated at Indore which was awarded to the Company by IDA. The total cost of the leasehold plot

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

RITESH SINGH ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TREND ELECTRONICS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

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

270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) (in short the ‘Act’) for AY 2018-19. 2. The core issue The core issue arising in these appeals is narrow and legal arising in these appeals is narrow and legal in character, namely, in character, namely, whether the learned CIT(A) CIT(A) was justified in not adjudicating

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

E R PER BENCH The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 12/09/2024 passed under section 250 of the ITAs No.5624, 5625, 5626, 5627, 5628, 5629, 5630 & 5631-Mum-2024 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment

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

E R PER BENCH The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 12/09/2024 passed under section 250 of the ITAs No.5624, 5625, 5626, 5627, 5628, 5629, 5630 & 5631-Mum-2024 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment

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

E R PER BENCH The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 12/09/2024 passed under section 250 of the ITAs No.5624, 5625, 5626, 5627, 5628, 5629, 5630 & 5631-Mum-2024 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under-reporting of Income.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the additions on merits, however, could not succeed , could not succeed, and thus, is in P a g e

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under-reporting of Income.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the additions on merits, however, could not succeed , could not succeed, and thus, is in P a g e

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under-reporting of Income.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the additions on merits, however, could not succeed , could not succeed, and thus, is in P a g e