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

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

68 PADAM PRABHU BUILDMART PVT.LTD. 26757 69 PADMAVATI BUILDTECH AND FARMS PVT. LTD. 220 70 PLEASANT REALTY AND FARMS PVT. LTD. 72000 71 SAMBHAVNATH REALITY AND FARMS PVT.LTD. 19000 72 SHALIBHADRA BUILTECH PVT.LTD. 56989 73 SHAUBHADRA REALTORS AND FARMS PVT. LTD. 62000 74 SHANT1NATH RESIDENTIAL PARADISE PVT. LTD. 56567 75 SHEETALNATH BUILDTECH AND FARMS PVT. LTD. 80000 76 SHEETALNATH CONSTRUCTION

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

68 of the Act. 20. We further observe that in the assessment order dated 22.03.2022 under Section 147 read with Section 144 (B) of the Act, the AO has not recorded clear cut satisfaction with regard to the initiation of the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (D) of the Act and thus, attracts the judgment

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, warranting an initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D for accepting cash in violation of prescribed limits. Similarly, the cash repayment of Rs.6,00,000/- is treated as unexplained money under Section 69A, and penalty proceedings under Section 271E

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

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 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 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 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

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

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 decisions rendered

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/-. A reference for consideration of penalty u/s.271D & 271E of the IT. Act was received by the Addl. CIT Central range-7 from the A.O. (DCIT, Cent. Cir.-7(3), Mumbai through letter dated 25.6.2015 intimating that the assessee has accepted loans/deposits from various sister concerns through Journal Entries i.e otherwise than account payee cheque/draft, thereby stating that

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

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

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

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

271E of the Act for assessment year 2011-12 for violating the provisions of sec. 269SS and 269T of the Act. 2. The facts that led to levy of penalty under the above said two sections of the Act are set out in brief. The assessee company is engaged in the business of development and construction of real estate