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

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessment, then he makes an assessment / reassessment of such income u/s 153A of the Act. 65. Now, the entire procedure is the same except under different sections having two separate contingencies. In our opinion, the Legislature has not left any discretion on the revenue officers to make the assessment /reassessment under any of the said set of provisions

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)

271D of the Act, on the ground that the penalty order(s) dated 29th September, 2009, was passed beyond the time period prescribed by Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. 9. Similar

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

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

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

271D of the Act, on the ground that the penalty order(s) dated 29th September, 2009, was passed beyond the time period prescribed by Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. 9. Similar

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, certain transactions of loan taken and repayment made other than through account payee cheque/bank draft were noted, leading to initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271D

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 271D & 271E penalty(ies),as the case may be, involving varying sums as under :- “2. All the three appeals relate to common issues in respect of imposition of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E for AY 2011-12 and AY 2010-11. Since, similar issue is involved in all the three appeals, we take them up together by passing

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 of the Act, directing the assessee

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 of the Act, directing the assessee

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 of the Act, directing the assessee

PREMJI BHURALAL GALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA 440/Mum/2024, ITA

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

reassessment proceedings, it came to light that the assessee has received the cash loan of Rs. 66,00,000/- from M/s. Evergreen Enterprises which was confirmed by Mr. Nilesh Bharani, one of the partners of M/s. Evergreen Enterprises as well as two of the employees of the same firm. However, the assessee has not mentioned the amount of loan received

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

271D of the Act, on the\nground that the penalty order(s) dated 29th September, 2009, was\npassed beyond the time period prescribed by Section 275(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six\nmonths from the end of the month in which the penalty\nproceedings were initiated by the AO.\n9. Similar

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

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

271D of the Act, on the\nground that the penalty order(s) dated 29th September, 2009, was\npassed beyond the time period prescribed by Section 275(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six\nmonths from the end of the month in which the penalty\nproceedings were initiated by the AO.\n9. Similar

VIKAS MOTIRAM DESAI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

reassessment order passed U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 which is 2 Vikas Motiram Desai, Mumbai. against the principles of natural justice and therefore void ab initio. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming an addition of 52 lakhs, being 50 lakhs on account of alleged cash loans

TRILOKCHAND SIRSALEWALA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE-33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Trilokchand Sirsalewala Joint Commissioner Of A-1/7, 202, Income Tax- Range 33(1), Room No. 931, 9Th Floor, Best View, Yashodham, Opp. Dindoshi Bus Depot., Kautilya Bhawan, Vs. Goregaon (E.) C-41 To C-43, Mumbai- 400063. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Abeps5015N Bandra (E.), Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rakeshkumar Sirsalewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Passed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 33(1), Mumbai U/S. 271D Of The Income Tax Act (‘Act’ In Short) Vide Order Dated 30/07/2019 For The A.Y 2011-12 Which Was Subsequently, Confirmed In Appeal By The Ld. Cit Appeal

reassessment proceedings under section 148, appellant denied acceptance of loan with detailed submission. However, assessing officer passed assessment order accepting income same as returned income and referred the matter to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for initiating penalty proceedings. The same was duly responded by the appellant. However, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax passed the order under section 271D

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

271D and 271E without appreciating the fact that no addition has been made with respect to the reasons recorded for reopening of assess- ment, as such, the reassessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd., AY 2011-12 & 2010-11 6. The Co-ordinate Bench gave its decision quashing the reassessment order passed

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

271D and 271E without appreciating the fact that no addition has been made with respect to the reasons recorded for reopening of assess- ment, as such, the reassessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd., AY 2011-12 & 2010-11 6. The Co-ordinate Bench gave its decision quashing the reassessment order passed