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 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

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

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

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 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

NIYATI SUTARIA JEMES ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailniyati Sutaria James, 302 Parimal Premises, 17Th Road, Khar West, Mumbai – 400052 ............... Appellant Pan : Ahipj7649B V/S Ito, Ward – 23(2)(1), Piramal Chambers, Parel ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

section 250 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (the Act), on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to any others. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the communication were delivered to the assessee on her registered email id. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the registered mobile

RAMA SIVARAMAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiate in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 on the base of AIR- Information with the Assessing Officer to the effect that the Assessee had sold immovable property during the relevant previous year for a consideration of INR.63,50,000/- which has not been offered tax in the return of income

RAMA SIVARAMAN,MUMBAI vs. AO WARD 3(2) , THANE

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiate in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 on the base of AIR- Information with the Assessing Officer to the effect that the Assessee had sold immovable property during the relevant previous year for a consideration of INR.63,50,000/- which has not been offered tax in the return of income

DEEJAY STOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2014-15] & [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deejay Stocks Dcit 4(2)(1) Private Limited Erstwhile Dcit 401, Shangrilla Apt., 12(2)(2), L. T. Road, Aayakar Bhava, Borivali (West), Vs. Maharishi Karve Mumbai- 400092. Road, Pan: Aadc6404H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings, Director of the assessee, looking after the company affairs, was busy with his fathers medical issues that slowly got worst. At same time Director's mother was also suffering severely and later passed away on 6/09/2022. The assessee submitted that, pending the assessment proceedings, the Director could not concentrate on other work and all the notices went unattended

DEEJAY STOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2014-15] & [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deejay Stocks Dcit 4(2)(1) Private Limited Erstwhile Dcit 401, Shangrilla Apt., 12(2)(2), L. T. Road, Aayakar Bhava, Borivali (West), Vs. Maharishi Karve Mumbai- 400092. Road, Pan: Aadc6404H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings, Director of the assessee, looking after the company affairs, was busy with his fathers medical issues that slowly got worst. At same time Director's mother was also suffering severely and later passed away on 6/09/2022. The assessee submitted that, pending the assessment proceedings, the Director could not concentrate on other work and all the notices went unattended

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

273B. v. Penalty Proceedings Independent of Assessment:- It is well settled in law that penalty u/s 271D is independent of the outcome of the quantum assessment. Even if an appeal is pending against the addition, the existence of a loan/deposit accepted in cash can separately attract penalty under 271D. In this case, the AO has clearly established the fact