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

VIMAL PUKHRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vimal Pukhraj Jain National E-Assessment Centre, 806, Dheeraj Enclave, New Delhi Vs. Opp. Bhor Industries, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066 Pan/Gir No. Aaipj 6511 H (Appellant) : (Respondent)

68 as unexplained credits and initiated penalty proceeding levied u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The provision of section

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

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

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,867 3 2010-11 Q2 24Q 15-10-2010 26-11-2010 070 33 OBQ 0536246 42 0 0 4 2010-11 Q2 26Q 15-10-2010 18-11-2010 07Q330300634566 34 1,18,486 1

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A; or (d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; (e) an order passed by an Assessing

RAJESH BABULAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

272A(1)(d) , date of order 03/09/2021 and order passed under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, date of order 03/02/2022. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment petition filed. Considering the merits and quantum involved in the case, we have decided to proceed with

RAJESH BABULAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

272A(1)(d) , date of order 03/09/2021 and order passed under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, date of order 03/02/2022. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment petition filed. Considering the merits and quantum involved in the case, we have decided to proceed with

BAO VALUE FUND,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

272A(1)(d) of the Act for failure to comply with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act or Section 143(2) of the Act or direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act when there was no failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the notices issued during the course

COMET ENTERPRISE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2022-23

272A(1)(d) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Ta the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under

DILIPKUMAR PHOOLCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Dcit, Circle-20(1), A/1901-1902, Piramal Chambers, Vardhman Heights, Vs. Dr.Ss Rao Marg, Tb Kadam Marg, Parel, Byculla (East), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400027. Pan : Aarpj1996K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

272A(1) (d) read with Section 274 of the Act.” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) vide order dt. 22-09-2022, wherein as against the returned loss of Rs. 8,68

ACIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CITYGOLD FARMING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 9(2)(2) Citygold Farming P. Ltd., बनाम/ Room No. 665A, 6Th Floor 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Centre, Road No. 7, Marol, Mumbai. Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca8865R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

d. Confirmations from preference shareholders in case of Shri Ganesh Spinners Ltd., Nextgen Infotel pvt ltd., and Albright Electricals Pvt Ltd. e. Bank statement of the shareholders showing payment made to appellant company. f. Bank statement and bank book of appellant company. g. Valuation report of Charter Accountant justifying issue of shares at premium, the rate of Rs. 1