R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 6(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanation (b) his status was non-resident, therefore, the global income cannot be taxed in India. We, 53 Mr. Binod Kumar Singh therefore, on this issue, affirm the conclusion of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The next ground raised by the Revenue pertains to deleting the addition

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

275 the ld. AO was required to have passed the order u/s. 271(1) (c) by 31.3.2011. As the assessing officer has not done so, the initiation of penalty proceedings is time barred. I find no merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR as the appellant has appealed against the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 read

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)

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the assessee Cross Objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Savita Oil Of Income Tax-Cc-8(4) Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 66-67, 658, Aayakarbhavan, Narimanbhawan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai- 400 021 Pan No.Aaacs7934A Appellant Respondent

c) of Section 271 (1) relates to the various defaults as also "concealment of income", the use of word "etc" becomes redundant. The Tribunal has further considered whether the use of the disjunctive "or" 8 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. ITA No.2323/MUM/2017/ Co 252/M/18 in the notices or communications issued by the Department gives rise to an ambiguity. He, therefore, states

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD;] (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections [***] [except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA

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

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