MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

DINESH KISHOR GOGIYA,ULHASNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(1) KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B could be levied.\n\n6. The relevant observations and submissions made by the\nassessee before the First Appellate Authority are reproduced\nhereunder:\n\n“The facts of the case are as under:\n\nI am engaged in the trading business on a very small scale and\nmain activity is agency business wherein / collect sale\nproceeds from customers being retail

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 27(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK CHANDERBHAN SUDHIJA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the ld AO is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Ar Acit, Circle- 27(1) Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija 408, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, 225/226 Commodity Exchange, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Plot No.2/3/4 Sector-17, Vashi, Complex,Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai -400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Banps6548H

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 xiii. The appellant individual craves to leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground 010. We do not know wherefrom these grounds of appeal are noted by the ld CIT (A). 011. However the grounds of appeal raised by assessee as mentioned in form

HEMANT V.PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Hemant V. Parikh Asst. Cit, Central Circle 3(2) 703, 704, Krushal Tower, Mumbai-400 021 Above Shoppers Stop, G M Road, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400 089

section 69A of the Act. 4. To delete the addition of Rs. 2,68,967/- towards negative cash balance u/s 69A of the Act. 5. To delete the addition of Rs. 5,49,82,670/- u/s 41(1) of the Act. 5 Hemant V. Parikh vs. Asst. CIT 6. To delete the addition

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

68 of Income-tax Act. Section 269SS/T were inserted to curve the circulation of black money and to curve the tax evasion. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty of equal of the amount of loan availed by the assessee vide its order dated 28.09.2012 passed under section 271D. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action

HARESH GHANSHYAMDAS MAKHIJA,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 44AB of the Act. Without considering the fact that the assessee’s total business turnover was only Rs.19,05,735/- the ld. A.O. has taken Rs.1,45,68,340/- as the gross amount of commission received by the assessee. The ld. AR further stated that the ld. CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without getting into

HARESH GHASHYAMDAS MAKHIJA,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(2), KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 44AB of the Act. Without considering the fact that the assessee’s total business turnover was only Rs.19,05,735/- the ld. A.O. has taken Rs.1,45,68,340/- as the gross amount of commission received by the assessee. The ld. AR further stated that the ld. CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without getting into

EUROPEAN TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

271B of the Act on account of assessee not getting its accounts audited u/s. 44AB of the Act. 2 European Trust, AY 2012-13 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private trust engaged in investment activities which did not carry on any business or profession. Return was filed on 29.03.2014 reporting total income

KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

271B and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” ITA No. 3271/Mum/2024 (AY - 2012-13): Ground No 1: Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Order Passed Is Illegal Void-Ab- Initio (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming

KRISHNA FASHION WORLD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

271B and u/s 271(F) while framing assessment and passing order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” ITA No. 3271/Mum/2024 (AY - 2012-13): Ground No 1: Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Order Passed Is Illegal Void-Ab- Initio (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming