CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

392 ITR 4High Court2017#175 most cited

What is CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery authority for?

A penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is unsustainable if it is initiated on one limb (e.g., concealment of income) but ultimately levied on the other limb (e.g., furnishing inaccurate particulars). This also applies if the initial penalty notice is vague or ambiguous regarding the specific charge.

417

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Samson Perinchery · 392 ITR 4 · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty initiated on one limb · penalty levied on other limb · vague penalty notice · penalty unsustainable · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 115JCSection 142(1)Section 115JBSection 143Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 274(1)section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsmalabar industrialsection 274penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)non-application of mindlevy of penalty

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

Viva Motors Sports Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ITO Ward- 4 (5), Thane

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 6510/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6510/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Viva Motors Sports Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer-Ward 4(5) 1St Floor, Thakur Arcade बनाम/ R.No.5, “A” Wing Station Road, Virar(W) Ashar I.T. Park Vs. Thane-401 303. Wagle Estate, Thane Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-9814-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Chintamani Dingankar-Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 26/11/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/11/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani Dingankar-Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 271(1)(c)

…ced, inter-alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows which dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue. Reliance was also placed on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT V/s Shri Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4. 3.2 Contesting the penalty on merits, the assessee submitted that the expenditure was claimed on the basis of agreement dated 26/08/2013 and in fact, due TDS was deducted against the same u/s194-I. However, the agreement period was to start from 16/11/2013 excluding fit-out period from 15/10/2013 to 14/11/2013 but the assessee inadvertently took t…

Vinay Girdhari Motwani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 210/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Vinay Giridhari Motwani V. Acit – 17(3) Elegant Apartment 3, Sobani Road Aayakar Bhavan Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadpm3598G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Department By : M. Samatha

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: M. Samatha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lty notice issued by the Assessing Officer does not strike off the irrelevant portion thereon. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: - (1) CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [242 Taxman 180 (SC)] (2) CIT v. Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4 (Bom.)] (3) Sumer Corporation v. ACIT in ITA.No. 494/Mum/2015 (4) Vision Infpro v. ACIT in ITA.No. 1394/Mum/2018 4. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Authorities below. Further Ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd., v. CIT [274 Taxman 144]. In reply Ld. Cou…

Punjab National Bank vs. Addl. CIT, Range-14

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 614/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) & Punjab National Bank Vs. Dcit Ho Accounts & Taxation Circle - 14(1) Deptt. New Delhi Ho : 5-Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan No. Aaacp 0165 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ile completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery reported in (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom) held that where initiation of penalty is one limb and the levy of penalty is on other limb, then in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of penalty. 44. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, it is seen that the AO has not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order but had levied penal…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(Cr)4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7650/MUM/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 ITA Nos. 5580,7645-7650/Mum/2016 M/s Balaji Telefilms Limited Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2012-13, 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1.आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5580/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7645/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3.आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7646/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & 4.आयकर…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5580/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 ITA Nos. 5580,7645-7650/Mum/2016 M/s Balaji Telefilms Limited Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2012-13, 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1.आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5580/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7645/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3.आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7646/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & 4.आयकर…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(Cr)4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7645/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 ITA Nos. 5580,7645-7650/Mum/2016 M/s Balaji Telefilms Limited Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2012-13, 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1.आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5580/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7645/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3.आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7646/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & 4.आयकर…

Emco Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)- 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5576/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Emco Dyestuff Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Unit No.304, Western Edge Tax(A)-20, 5Th Floor, Earnest House, W.E. Highway Dattapada Road Nariman Point Borivali (E) Mumbai-400021 Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaace1167D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal Revenue By Shri Amit Pratap Singh Date Of Hearing 24/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2020

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32

…d ultimately levied on different limb of the assessee, then in such cases, the penalty levied deserved to be cancelled. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4 (Bom). Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the recent decision in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd., vs. CIT dated 12/06/2020 reported in 117 Taxman.com 182(Bom). Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the penalty levied in the instant case amounting to Rs.92,716/- is not sustainable in…

Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad Sah, Mumbai vs. Adcit 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2460/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2460/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad बिधम/ Adcit 23(3) 104, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Sah Vs. 22 A Band Stand Society Tardeo Rd, Mumbai-400007. 197-C, Kane Rd Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps5412H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (Dr) Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/ 08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (DR)For Respondent: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…on 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [Act]. ITA. No2460/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 (2) CIT(A) further erred in this connection in holding that imposition of penalty in Appellant's case is in accordance with principles laid down in CIT v. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY 392 ITR 4 (BOM). (3) CIT(A) further erred in this connection that basis of initiation of penalty and ultimate levy vide order dated 30.03.20 17 is oil same limb namely, furnishing of inaccurate particulars. (4) CIT(A) further erred in this connection in holding that Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) is clearly attracted. (5) CIT(A) further erred in this c…

Leeba Construction, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gaddekar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE (Through – VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.659/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Lebba Construction, Plot No.185/602, Vrindawan Nagar, Chetana Nagar, CIDCO, Nashik – 422 010. PAN : AACFL3002D. …Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar. ...Respondent. Assessee by : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue by : Shri Prashant Gaddekar. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :…

M/S. Klassic Constructions (Nashik) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2474/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen
Section 271(1)(c)

…os. 2226, 1520, 1521, 1853/PUN/2016 and ITA No. 153/PUN/2017 for the A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 wherein this Tribunal by following the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4 held that the AO should be clear as to which limb of two charges under which the penalty is to be imposed falling which the penalty imposed on both the limbs contrary to the findings in assessment order is not maintainable. There is no dispute that the AO initiated penalty proceedings on the charge of concealment of income and imposed penalty on bo…

M/S. C.S. Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3915/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…serves to be set aside. For the above proposition, the ld. Counsel referred to the following decisions:- i) CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565; ii) CIT v. SSA’S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar); iii) CIT v. Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 (Bombay); iv) PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [ITA No. 475 of 2019]; v) Manu Bali v. ACIT [ITA/790/DEL/2016; decision dated 05.10.2017]; 3 vi) Vijay Agarwal v. DCIT [ITA/5432/DEL/2016; decision dated 05.11.2019]; vii) Sanjay Mittra vs. DCIT [ITA No.5206/Del/2016, order dated 01.10.2018]; viii) DCIT vs. Gellette Diversified Operations…

Paville Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-2015

ITA 1181/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra (DR)
Section 143Section 271Section 274

…, which shows that the AO sent the notice without striking off the inapplicable portion of the contents of notice printed on a standard proforma. The Ld. counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) submitted that failure on the part of the AO to state the specific charge on which the penalty was proposed to be levied would render the penalty order invalid. The Ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Mumbai Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (The Tribunal) have deleted the penalty levied by the AO after issui…

Jagdisdh P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ITO, 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1322/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Jagdish P. Purohit V. Income Tax Officer – 18(1)(5) 262/268, Adarsh Hotel Earnest House, Nariman Point Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aanpp6311L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department By : Shri Bhera Ram

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Bhera Ram
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…g the specific charge in the notice initiating penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars of income in the Assessment Order and the Coordinate Bench considering the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4] and also various decisions held that action of the Assessing Officer in non-striking off relevant clause in the notice shows that the charge being made against the assessee is not firm therefore proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice in as much as the Assessing Officer himself is not sure of the charge and the as…

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

ITA 2191/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 271(1)Section 36

…submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court as well as decision of that e High Court in case of 359 ITR 565. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in 392 ITR 4 wherein the honourable High Court deleted the penalty wherein in para number three the honourable High Court considered the fact that the tribunal also noted in that case that notice issued under section 274 of the act is in a standard proforma without having strikeout relevant clauses therein indicates non-application of mind on the part of the as…

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 271(1)Section 36

…submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court as well as decision of that e High Court in case of 359 ITR 565. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in 392 ITR 4 wherein the honourable High Court deleted the penalty wherein in para number three the honourable High Court considered the fact that the tribunal also noted in that case that notice issued under section 274 of the act is in a standard proforma without having strikeout relevant clauses therein indicates non-application of mind on the part of the as…

Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ichalkranji vs. वार्ड - 4, Ichalkaranji

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed on legal grounds

ITA 143/PUN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 144/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. Pan: Aabta0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.142 to 144/PUN/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. PAN: AABTA0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Heari…

Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ichalkranji vs. वार्ड - 4, Ichalkaranji

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed on legal grounds

ITA 142/PUN/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 144/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. Pan: Aabta0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.142 to 144/PUN/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. PAN: AABTA0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Heari…

DCIT - (Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6267/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Yadav &For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ff either of the limbs of Section 271(1)(c). Hence on this ground itself penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Reliance is placed in the following decisions - • CIT vs SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC). ITA No 380 of 2015 • CIT vs Samson Perinchery (SLP)(392 ITR 4) (BOM) • CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) (Kar) p) The final penalty is imposed by invoking Explanation 1 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is submitted that Explanation 1 does not apply for charging penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but same applies for concealment of particulars of…

M/S.Navodaya Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2475/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathanavodaya Logistics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit-13(1)(1) Room No.218, 2Nd Floor Flat No.22, Vishwatar Condominium, Aaykar Bhawan Plot No.310,Khar (West) M.K.Road Mumbai-400 052 Mumbai-400 020

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(2)

…The Ld. AR for the assessee, referring to additional grounds of appeal filed submitted that the issue involved in this appeals is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4, where it was held that in absence of proper satisfaction, as regards limb under which penalty proceedings are initiated or if penalty proceedings are initiated under one limb and penalty is levied under different limb, then whole penalty proceedings become vitiated and consequently, penalty levied by the Ld. AO cannot survive. In this regard, he a…

Classic Import P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 3447/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Classic Import Pvt.Ltd. I.T.O 12(1)(4) 1001, Corporate Avenue, Room No. 262, 2Nd Floor, Sonawala Cross Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 20 Mumbai – 400 063 Pan – Aaccc7095E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha, A.RFor Respondent: Kumar Padmapani Bora, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…ITA No.3447/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 1 M/s Classic Import Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-12(1)(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member M/s Classic Import Pvt.Ltd. I.T.O 12(1)(4) 1001, Corporate Avenue, Room No. 262, 2nd Floor, Sonawala Cross Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 20 Mumbai – 400 063 PAN – AACCC7095E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Prayag Jha, A.R Respondent by: Kumar Padmapani Bora, D.R Date of Hearing: 28.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 17.02.2020 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD…