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

NILOFAR JALAL LAKHAN ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSELLMENT CENTRE 2 (1) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilofar Jalal Lakhan, National Faceless Assessment Crescent Bay, Tower 6, Flat No. Centre Dcit 2(1), Delhi. 3904, Jerbai Wadia Road, Vs. Bhoiwada, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Afvpj 9774 L Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. V.C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2022

reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and against which u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and against which the assessee is in the assessee is in appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The assessee appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The contended that

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MAHAVIR BUILD ESTATE PVT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Reassessment proceedings were initiated for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was passed on 30.03.2015 assessing total income of the Assessee at INR 4,36,970/- as against the returned loss of INR 17,69,197/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had noticed that the Assessee

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

273B of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in running a service centre and providing assistance in sourcing and procurement of yarn, textiles, home furnishing fabrics, garments, steel, tyres etc. from sources within India to Kaybee Exim Pte Limited Singapore (KEPL). Initially assessment for the year under consideration was completed under

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

KANAIYALAL B SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhkanaiyalal B. Shah Jcit Range-19(2), 31, Jai Bhavani Society, Mumbai. Vs. 3 Rr Thakker Marg, Mumbai-400006. Pan: Aahpk4505D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Divya Jeswant (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr)

Section 273B of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is not the owner of the bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment

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

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case 3.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain where

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case 3.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain where

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

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SHANTINATH DESIGNER CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

273B of the Act, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty of Rs.22 99 crores.' 7.5.3. It has also been observed by the Addl.CIT that it shall not be out of place to mention that the assesses group has made a disclosure before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai