RATNAGIRI STAINLESS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

234C and 234D of the Act. ITA 4463/Mum/2016 3 7. The appellant crave leave to add, amend , alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not wish to press ground no. 1,2,5 and 6 raised

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

234C, 234D and 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is consequential. The Appellant denies its liability for such interest. 5 . The Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that ground raised disputing initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is premature. The Appellant denies its liability for such penalty.” Assessee – ITA 5379/Mum/2015

ABB SWITZERLAND LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADIT 1(1),

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

234C; and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by the AO. 3. Before us, the Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Perci J. Pardiwalla, submitted that in this case the reopening of assessment under section 147 vide notice dated 25.03.2011 u/s 148 is itself is bad in law and accordingly, the entire proceedings as well as the impugned orders

ABB SWITZERLAND LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADIT 1(1),

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

234C; and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by the AO. 3. Before us, the Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Perci J. Pardiwalla, submitted that in this case the reopening of assessment under section 147 vide notice dated 25.03.2011 u/s 148 is itself is bad in law and accordingly, the entire proceedings as well as the impugned orders

AJAY MULTI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajay Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, C.J. House, 285 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aadca 0338 H Appellant Respondent

section 148A have not been followed and as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. as a result, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. The sanction u/s 151 is bad in law and as a result, the The sanction u/s

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

234C and 234F of the Act, and the order of CIT (Appeal)/NFAC is not correct as per procedure in confirming the same, hence the same is requested to be set aside. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

234C of the IT Act, 1961. 22. The learned A. O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 23. Any other ground or grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing.” 06. Assessee in ITA No 1292 is a company engaged in trading in gold bar, gold jewellery

ANIRUDDHA N. MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC - 3 (2), MUMBAI

234C of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not setting aside the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing.” 4. Brief facts of the case

ANJALI A. MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 3(2), MUMBAI

234C of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not setting aside the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing.” 4. Brief facts of the case

KALA RAMESH PARMAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD- 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekala Ramesh Parmar Ito Ward – 23(2)(6), 2/21,Kishorebuilding, Room No.303, बनाम/ Opp Edward Cinema, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 521, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400002. Mumbai- 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6229M (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

reassessment order dated 19.12.2019 is void ab initio. Hence, the impugned order passed under section 250 of the Act is bad in law and the same may be quashed 3. Addition by treating the long term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act unjustified - Rs.2,01,925/- i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

SHREE GINGER ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CR 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was found that assessee has claimed purchases of plant and machinery of Rs. 100 crores from M/s Advik Textiles and Realpro Ltd. The assessee in its reply submitted that the purchases made by them are genuine as per the bills issued by the parties. Further the assessee pointed out that total addition to the plant and machinery

HANIL ERA TEXTILES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 for the assessment year 2004-05, on the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) (A) erred in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w. section 143(3) is not bad in law and without