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)

271E of the Act and it was only the Joint Commissioner of Income- tax who could have done so. Therefore, for the purpose of limitation under section 275(1) (c), the relevant date should be the date on which notice in relation to the penalty proceedings were issued. In the present case, as the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax issued

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 and 271E

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

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

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

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

271E on account\nof violation or the provisions of section 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

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

271E on account\nof violation or the provisions of section 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

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

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

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

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

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

PREMJI BHURLAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RANG 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

Section 271 (D) and 271 (E) of the Act and by observing and holding as under: 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that the reassessment proceedings, u/s. 147 of the Act in the course of which penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E

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

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 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

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 of the Act, directing the assessee