APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee’s turnover exceeded the statutory threshold requiring a tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), but no such audit report had been furnished. The ld AO, therefore, issued a show cause notice proposing to levy penalty u/s 271B

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee’s turnover exceeded the statutory threshold requiring a tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), but no such audit report had been furnished. The ld AO, therefore, issued a show cause notice proposing to levy penalty u/s 271B

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee's turnover exceeded the statutory threshold requiring a tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), but no such audit report had been furnished. The ld AO, therefore, issued a show cause notice proposing to levy penalty u/s 271B

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total income was was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/ assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/-. In view of the assesse . In view of the assessed income, the Assessing Officer

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee's turnover exceeded the statutory threshold requiring a tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), but no such audit report had been furnished. The ld AO, therefore, issued a show cause notice proposing to levy penalty u/s 271B

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee's turnover exceeded the statutory threshold requiring a tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), but no such audit report had been furnished. The ld AO, therefore, issued a show cause notice proposing to levy penalty u/s 271B

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee's turnover exceeded the statutory threshold requiring a tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), but no such audit report had been furnished. The ld AO, therefore, issued a show cause notice proposing to levy penalty u/s 271B

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

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

DATTATRAY NAMDEV SURYAWANSHI,PANVEL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

271B, and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. " 3. For the year under consideration, assessee contended on the legal issue that approval obtained by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of issuing notice u/s 148 is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151 under the new regime of reassessment

PUMPKIN PICTURES PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, THANE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, the assessee could not substantiate the claim of expenses made by filing the bills/vouchers. If the contention raised by the appellant is accepted, in that case, an assessee will not maintain proper books of accounts and will not file his Income Tax Return even after earning taxable income and once same comes to the notice of the Department

EUROPEAN TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

271B of the Act on account of assessee not getting its accounts audited u/s. 44AB of the Act. 2 European Trust, AY 2012-13 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private trust engaged in investment activities which did not carry on any business or profession. Return was filed on 29.03.2014 reporting total income

MAHARASHRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

271B of the Act in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section

LATA KESHAO THAOKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelata Keshao Thaokar V. Ito– Ward – 28(2)(1) B-103, Balaji Complex, Sector-46A Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex Mumbai - 400703 Plot 3C, Nerul (West) Navi Mumbai Pan: Afbpt2685Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajesh Shah Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar

section 44AB and imposed maximum penalty leviable u/s 271B of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and they have sustained the penalty as assessee failed to establish reasonable cause and hence dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The appellant request your honour