RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE -13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated\n24.12.2018. In the same reassessment, ld. Assessing Officer had al-\nleged that there are certain transactions of loan taken and repayment\nmade, which were carried out by the assessee by means other than by\nway of account pay cheque/bank draft, therefore there is a violation\nu/s. 269SS and 269T of the Act. Ld. Assessing

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

Section 271 (D) and 271 (E) of the Act and by observing and holding as under: 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that the reassessment proceedings, u/s. 147 of the Act in the course of which penalty proceedings u/s. 271D

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

147 [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 150; [(ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel]] [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total income was was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/ assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/-. In view of the assesse . In view of the assessed income, the Assessing Officer

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

section 271D & 271E penalty(ies),as the case may be, involving varying sums as under :- “2. All the three appeals relate to common issues in respect of imposition of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E for AY 2011-12 and AY 2010-11. Since, similar issue is involved in all the three appeals, we take them up together by passing

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 24.12.2018. In the same reassessment, ld. Assessing Officer had al- leged that there are certain transactions of loan taken and repayment made, which were carried out by the assessee by means other than by way of account pay cheque/bank draft, therefore there is a violation u/s. 269SS and 269T of the Act. Ld. Assessing

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE -13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 24.12.2018. In the same reassessment, ld. Assessing Officer had al- leged that there are certain transactions of loan taken and repayment made, which were carried out by the assessee by means other than by way of account pay cheque/bank draft, therefore there is a violation u/s. 269SS and 269T of the Act. Ld. Assessing

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

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

reassessment proceedings and not filed even the basic details within the time allowed in the notices. 6. Conclusion drawn for Imposition of Penalty: 4 ITA No.897/Mum/2024 - Shyam Kumar Sadashivam Pillai 6.1 On considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances in this case and it becomes apparent that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee

PREMJI BHURALAL GALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA 440/Mum/2024, ITA

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

147 with the addition of Rs.66 lakhs.The search was conducted U/s 132 of the Act in the premises of M/s Evergreen Enterprises. One of the partners of M/s Evergreen Enterprises recorded a statement that the assessee is a beneficiary of cash loan amount to Rs. 66,00,000/-. The re-assessment proceeding was initiated relying on assessee has taken cash

TRILOKCHAND SIRSALEWALA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE-33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Trilokchand Sirsalewala Joint Commissioner Of A-1/7, 202, Income Tax- Range 33(1), Room No. 931, 9Th Floor, Best View, Yashodham, Opp. Dindoshi Bus Depot., Kautilya Bhawan, Vs. Goregaon (E.) C-41 To C-43, Mumbai- 400063. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Abeps5015N Bandra (E.), Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rakeshkumar Sirsalewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Passed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 33(1), Mumbai U/S. 271D Of The Income Tax Act (‘Act’ In Short) Vide Order Dated 30/07/2019 For The A.Y 2011-12 Which Was Subsequently, Confirmed In Appeal By The Ld. Cit Appeal

reassessment proceedings under section 148, appellant denied acceptance of loan with detailed submission. However, assessing officer passed assessment order accepting income same as returned income and referred the matter to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for initiating penalty proceedings. The same was duly responded by the appellant. However, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax passed the order under section 271D

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

271D and 271E without appreciating the fact that no addition has been made with respect to the reasons recorded (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Ravi Nirman Nigam Limited for reopening of assessment, as such, the reassessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. Your appellant craves leave to add to, amend or N.A alter

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 13 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

271D and 271E without appreciating the fact that no addition has been made with respect to the reasons recorded (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Ravi Nirman Nigam Limited for reopening of assessment, as such, the reassessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. Your appellant craves leave to add to, amend or N.A alter

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)

271D of the Act, on the ground that the penalty order(s) dated 29th September, 2009, was passed beyond the time period prescribed by Section 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

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)

271D of the Act, on the ground that the penalty order(s) dated 29th September, 2009, was passed beyond the time period prescribed by Section 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

VIKAS MOTIRAM DESAI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

reassessment order passed U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 which is 2 Vikas Motiram Desai, Mumbai. against the principles of natural justice and therefore void ab initio. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming an addition of 52 lakhs, being 50 lakhs on account of alleged cash loans

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

147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens opens. The time-limit within which the notice under limit within which the notice under Section

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

147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens opens. The time-limit within which the notice under limit within which the notice under Section

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

147\ntaxmann.com 220 (Delhi) wherein the Court has followed\nvarious other judgments to decide the precise issue of limitation\nin the case of penalty u/s 271D and 271T. The Hon'ble High\nCourt has even taken note of the contention of the Revenue\nwhich has also been raised before us that date of issuance of\nshow-cause notice should