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)

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 view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. Reported in (2024) 159 taxmann.com

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

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

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 view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in\nthe case of PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. Reported in (2024)\n159 taxmann.com

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

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 view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in\nthe case of PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. Reported in (2024)\n159 taxmann.com

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

C Wing, 4th Floor, Vashi Station Building, Runwal Center, Govandi Station Vs. Navi Mumbai. Road, Deonar, Mumbai - 400088. PAN : BDGPP8031C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate Revenue/Respondent by : Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

reassessment proceedings have been initiated only with a view to revive original assessment proceedings which got time barred and hence ought to be quashed, Without prejudice, passing the final assessment order as against the draft assessment order Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 9. without prejudice, erred in upholding the validity of the draft order dated

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

BHAIRAV TUBE (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

275(1)(a) and is therefore liable to be annulled. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad vs. CIT, Nagpur [2016] 65 taxmannc.om 293 (Bombay), wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that, where the appeal of assessee against the addition made was pending before

ALRAMEEZ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

275. 3. We have gone through the order of AO imposing penalty u/s 270A, order of Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds of 4 M/s Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. appeal taken. It is observed that quantum addition in the case of the assessee was made u/s 43CA r.w.s. 56 (2) (x) i.e. deeming sections. For ready