DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.3050 & 3051/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 ) D.C.I.T, Cc-7(3), M/S Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. 412, Vardhman Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan No. Aabcl1117D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Neraj Sheth, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Dated 12.02.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Range-7, Mumbai (For Short ―Addl. Cit‖) Under Sec. 271D & Sec. 271E Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ―Act‖), Dated 29.06.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15. As The Issues Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals Are Interwoven Or In Fact Intertwined, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: ―1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon‘Ble Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.1,99,68,616/- U/S 271D Holding That There Was Reasonable Cause U/S 273B For Entering On Transaction To Transaction Basis In The Given Case For The Existence Of Reasonable Cause U/S 273B Which Led To The Exigency Of Contravention Of Provisions Of Sections 269Ss/St.

68,616/- u/s 271D holding that there was reasonable cause u/s 273B for entering on transaction to transaction basis in the given case for the existence of reasonable cause u/s 273B which led to the exigency of contravention of provisions of sections 269SS/ST. ITA Nos. 3050 & 3051/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 2 DCIT,CC-7(3) Vs. M/s Palava Dwellers

MITA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT - CC - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 269T has been found in the cases of those erstwhile companies has been found. What is being sought to be added in the hands of the assessee company is addition of cash credit u/s 68

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

Section 269Ss and 269T of Income Tax Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is repaid in the same year however the same is not material as repaid in the same year however the same

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

Section 269Ss and 269T of Income Tax Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is repaid in the same year however the same is not material as repaid in the same year however the same

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

Section 269Ss and 269T of Income Tax Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is repaid in the same year however the same is not material as repaid in the same year however the same

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. HI CLASS BUILDCON P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am

section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, However since the assessee has shown reasonable cause “under Sec. 273” of the Income Tax Act, therefore, levying of penalty was not justifiable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the revenue has preferred the appeal before us. Both the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. AASHTHAVINAYAK ESTATE COMPANY P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cent Cir – 7(3) Vs. M/S. Aasthavinayak Estate Room No. 655, Company Ltd., 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 216, Shah & Nahar M.K. Road, Industrial Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dr. E. Moses Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aagca2863C Appellant) .. Respondent)

68,320/-. In the assessment order it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS/269T by not accepting/not repaying the loans through account payee cheque or bank draft and accordingly a reference was made to the Addl.CIT., Central Range-7, Mumbai. The Addl.CIT has levied the penalty u/s.271D with respect

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

68) observed as under: "There is a subtle distinction between a deposit and a loan. In the case of a loan, the amount is given by the creditor to the debtor at the request of and for the requirements and dues of the debtor under certain terms and conditions, In the case of a deposit, the depositee receives money

SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

269T of the Act by accepting and repaying loans otherwise than by account payee cheque or bank draft. Accordingly the AO referred the matters to the Addl. CIT for taking necessary action u/s 271D/271E of the Act, who is the competent authority to initiate and levy penalty under the above said sections. 3. During the year under consideration

NEETA VIJAY UDANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 68 of the Act. Neeta Vijay Udani ITA No.948/Mum./2018 During the course of hearing, learned AR relied upon decisions of coordinate bench of Tribunal in Mihir Agencies Private Limited vs DCIT, ITA Nos. 6435 to 6441/Mum/2012 and Gold Star Finvest Private Limited vs DCIT, ITA No. 6114 to 6120/Mum/2012, wherein the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, following

SUPARSHWA CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6, MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

269T of Income Tax Act. The appellant submits that the CIT(A) has levied the penalty on hyper technical grounds and the transaction has not been disbelieved and that due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, it has to enter into such transaction. In view thereof, the penalty levied u/s 271D of Rs.6

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRANSLANDS INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Translands Income-Tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. Jn-3-14-5, Asshirwad Chs, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent

269T.  Penalty u/s.271D cannot be levied if the transaction is bonafide and genuine and there is a reasonable cause u/s.273B. c) The other judgements in favour of appellant holding that penalty u/s.271D is not leviable on acceptance of loans by passing journal entries in books of accounts is not in violation of section 269SS of Act if transaction

PREMJI BHURALAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the validity of the re-opening u/s

Bench: Your Honors Should Have Been Filed Within 60 Days Of Receipt Of The Order Of Cxit(A) But The Same Could Not Be Done.

269T. From the seized documents, he found that the assessee has paid interest amount and brokerage/commission on these loans. Based on these impounded 5 AY. 2012-13 Premji Bhuralal Gala documents he has noted the details of cash loan received, cash loan repaid, date of loan and repayments, days for calculation of interest and interest and commission amount

MAHENDRA SINGH DASANA,KANDIVALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

269T of\nthe Act, as the funds borrowed were from a bank via formal\ngold loan products, and repayments were also being made\nthrough banking channels and there were no cash loans\ntaken or repaid to the individuals in violation of the said\nsections.\n13. Therefore we are of the view that the addition

KRISHNAMOORTHY RAMLINGAM MUDALIYAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 THANE, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2894/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2895/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2893/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Mudaliyar 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Vs. Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Ashar It Park, Road-16- Avenue, Sector-36, Plot No. Z, Wagle Industrial 27, Kamothe, Navi Estate, Thane-(W)- Mumbai-410218. 400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.313/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Krishnamoorthy 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Ramlingam Mudaliyar Vs. Ashar It Park, Road-16-Z, Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Wagle Industrial Estate, Avenue, Sector-36, Plot Thane-(W)-400604. No. 27, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410218. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

269T r.w.s 271E of the Act. The Ld. AR showed us that, no such penal action was taken by the AO/Revenue against M/s VIPL. Instead the peak cash balances across all Pages of Bundle No. 2 including Pages 137 to 139 (containing name of assessee) were assessed as unexplained income of M/s VIPL. This according to the Ld. AR supported

KRISHNAMOORTHY RAMLINNGAM MUDALIYAR ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3 THANE, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2894/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2895/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2893/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Mudaliyar 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Vs. Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Ashar It Park, Road-16- Avenue, Sector-36, Plot No. Z, Wagle Industrial 27, Kamothe, Navi Estate, Thane-(W)- Mumbai-410218. 400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.313/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Krishnamoorthy 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Ramlingam Mudaliyar Vs. Ashar It Park, Road-16-Z, Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Wagle Industrial Estate, Avenue, Sector-36, Plot Thane-(W)-400604. No. 27, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410218. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

269T r.w.s 271E of the Act. The Ld. AR showed us that, no such penal action was taken by the AO/Revenue against M/s VIPL. Instead the peak cash balances across all Pages of Bundle No. 2 including Pages 137 to 139 (containing name of assessee) were assessed as unexplained income of M/s VIPL. This according to the Ld. AR supported

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

269T of the Act. Since this issue does not arise from the order passed by the CIT(A), Ground No. 4.h) raised by the Assessee is dismissed. Ground No. 4.i) 6.37. Ground No. 4.i) raised by the Assessee pertain to receipts of INR 21,36,064/- brought to tax in the hands of the Assessee. 6.38. During

SREENU SIDDAIAH BEJADI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsreenu Siddaiah Bejadi Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Flat No. 603, F Wing, Tax (Appeals) Xanadu Chs, Prathmesh National Faceless Appeal Complex, Veera Desai Centre (Nfac) Road, Andheri West Delhi 400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aeopb1174L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Krishna Kumar Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

Section 264 and other provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 4. The appellant carves to reserve the right to modify, alter, amend or/and add grounds of appeal on proceedings of the case.” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,54,000/- was filed on 17.03.2016. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment