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

2 15.06.2001 1,00,000 3 23.06.2001 50,000 4 05.07.2001 1,00,000 5 15.07.2001 1,00,000 6 01.08.2001 1,00,000 7 05.08.2001 1,00,000 4. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 279SS, therefore, liable for penalty under section 271D. The Assessing Officer made reference

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

2. The Return of Income was filed on 10th September 2016 declaring Total Income Rs.24,62,230/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI A of Rs. 1,60, 148/-. 3. The return for A.Y 2016-17 was selected for reopening of assessment u/s 148 vide Notice dtd. 31-Mar-2021. 4. Your Appellant had filed the Return of Income again

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

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

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

Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case 3.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay

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

Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case 3.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay

SAMEER NOORULLAH KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Sameer Noorullah Khan Cit (A)-32 K Raheja Prime Kautilya Bhavan, Office No.9, 9 Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Behind Times Square Bldg, Room No.945, Bkc, Vs. Sag Baug Road, Marol Naka, Bandra (E) Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 50 Mumbai-400 059 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alrpk 5260 A Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022

68 of the Act were made. The learned Assessing Officer noted that as assessee has borrowed cash loan from 11 parties of ₹80 lacs which is more than ₹20,000/- in each case, penalty proceedings under Section 271D read with section 269SS of the Act is initiated for accepting loan of ₹18 lacs in cash. Consequently, an assessment

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

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

sections having two separate contingencies. In our opinion, the Legislature has not left any discretion on the revenue officers to make the assessment /reassessment under any of the said set of provisions as per their choice. This is a jurisdictional aspect and goes to the root of the assessment. 66. We also notice that, the Legislature for enforcement

ACIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S FAME ENGINEERING INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(1), D-31, Star Apartment, S.V. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Borivali (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Tax-12(2)(1), 31, Star Apartment, S.V. Road, Borivali Room No. 128E, 1St Floor, Vs. West, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

section 68 of the Act and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition. We do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in- dispute and accordingly we uphold the same. The grounds, pertaining to merit of the additions are also dismissed. M/s Fame Engineering India

FAME ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(1), D-31, Star Apartment, S.V. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Borivali (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Tax-12(2)(1), 31, Star Apartment, S.V. Road, Borivali Room No. 128E, 1St Floor, Vs. West, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

section 68 of the Act and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition. We do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in- dispute and accordingly we uphold the same. The grounds, pertaining to merit of the additions are also dismissed. M/s Fame Engineering India

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. NDW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1), Ndw Development Corporation 304, Piramal Chambers, Llp, Parel, Vs. B 201-202, Doodh Wala Complex, Mumbai-400012. Chsl, Belashis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. Pan : Aapfn4779C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Inder Solanki, Cit-Dr

68, and Rs.6,00,000/- is treated as unexplained money under Section 69A, with corresponding penalties under Sections 271D and 271E being initiated.” 8. Against the aforesaid order so passed by the ld CIT(A) and the findings of the ld CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. During the course of hearing

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

68 of the Act and section 69A for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2016-17. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The Ld.AR vehemently argued and first invited our attention in assessment order para 4 which