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

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

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated and the notices/letters/communications have not been served on the registered email id of the appellant. The appellant submits that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant

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

273B. v. Penalty Proceedings Independent of Assessment:- It is well settled in law that penalty u/s 271D is independent of the outcome of the quantum assessment. Even if an appeal is pending against the addition, the existence of a loan/deposit accepted in cash can separately attract penalty under 271D. In this case, the AO has clearly established the fact

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

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

SANJAY K. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-19(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rehman & Shri Ravish Soodsanjay K. Shah, Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 31, Jay Bhavani Society, Range 19(2), 3 Ridge Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 006

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 proceedings under Section 147 initiated on the basis the alleged bank account of HSBC Bank, Geneva were dropped in the case of Appellant

SHALIN TANDON (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI SANDEEP TANDON),MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT -19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3284/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Shalin Tandon Jcit-19(2) (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Sandeep Tandon) Mumbai – 400 021 बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम 147, 4Th Floor Vs. Atlanta, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021. ःथायीलेखासं ःथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं ःथायीलेखासं ःथायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapt-1953-H जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

273B exonerate assessee from imposition of penalty u/s 272(A)(1) / (2), if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. As per Clause(6) of Section 133 of the Act, the authorities may require any person to furnish information in relation to such points or matters or furnish statements of account and affairs

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

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