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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery?

417 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 115JC, Section 142(1), Section 115JB.

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4)

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4942/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…wa Estate & Developers India Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT in ITA.No. 2155/Mum/2016 dated 02.02.2017 (v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davre v. ACIT in ITA.No. 2187/Mum/2014 dated 12.12.2016. (vi) Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [291 ITR 519 (SC)] (vii) CIT v. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (BOM) (viii) Pr. CIT v. Goa coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd., [Tax Appeal No. 24 of 2019, High Court of Bombay at Goa, dated 11.11.2019. (ix) Pr.CIT v. New Era Sova Mine [Tax Appeal No. 70 of 2018, High Court of Bombay at Goa dated 18.06.2019] (x) Pr. CIT v. Goa Dourado Promotions Pvt. Ltd., [Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2019, High Court of Bombay…

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4941/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…wa Estate & Developers India Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT in ITA.No. 2155/Mum/2016 dated 02.02.2017 (v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davre v. ACIT in ITA.No. 2187/Mum/2014 dated 12.12.2016. (vi) Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [291 ITR 519 (SC)] (vii) CIT v. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (BOM) (viii) Pr. CIT v. Goa coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd., [Tax Appeal No. 24 of 2019, High Court of Bombay at Goa, dated 11.11.2019. (ix) Pr.CIT v. New Era Sova Mine [Tax Appeal No. 70 of 2018, High Court of Bombay at Goa dated 18.06.2019] (x) Pr. CIT v. Goa Dourado Promotions Pvt. Ltd., [Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2019, High Court of Bombay…

Rajivji Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1873/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1873/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rajivji Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd. Mouje Dindnerli, Taluka Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur-416 210. Pan : Aaaar5233K .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…he penalty proceedings were initiated. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the abov…

Macchindra T. Pagire, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.764/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Macchindra T. Pagire, Plot No. 20, Bhagyoday Hsg. Society, Savedi, Ahmednagar-414 001 Pan : Achpp7742D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Davekar &For Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…he penalty proceedings were initiated. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting 3 A.Y.2…

Manisha Sai and Dare Construction Co., Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1927/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manisha Sai & Dare Construction Co. 20, Bhagyoday Housing Society, Savedi, Ahmednagar-414003 Pan : Aavfm4678B .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravindra Davekar &For Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…eedings were initiated. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a 3 A.Y.2013-14 specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the abov…

M/S.Krish Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-4, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4554/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Krish Developers, Acit Circle-4, 3 & 4, Unique Vaibhav, A Wing, 4Th Floor, Tirupati Nagar-1, Ashar It Park, Vs. Bolinj, Road No.16Z, Virar (West), Ambika Nagar, Thane Wagle Estate, Pan: Aaifk0931E Thane – 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. Michael Jerald, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald, D.R

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

…Developers a)CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows(SC) (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 Karnataka – SLP dismissed as reported in (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) b) CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) c) CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) d) CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery ITXA No.1310 of 2014 order dated 10.01.2017 (Bom. – HC) 9. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that there is no merits in the arguments of the Ld. A.R. that AO has failed to mention one of the two limbs on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. The ld DR argued that the AO has correctly issued…

Thomas Cook (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5909/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awunghi Gimson, D.R

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

…ndia) Ltd. a)CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows(SC) (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 Karnataka – SLP dismissed as reported in (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) b) CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) c) CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) d) CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery ITXA No.1310 of 2014 order dated 10.01.2017 (Bom. – HC) 6. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of authorities below. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case the AO while passing the order has not indicated or recorded his satisfacti…

Ankeet Cottage Industries, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (3), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 271(1)(c)

…oceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars. The AO imposed penalty for concealment of income which is not maintainable in view of decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4. 4. Shri S.P. Walimbe, the DR did not dispute the same. 5. We find that the AO recorded its satisfaction in para 2.9 of the assessment order that the assessee filed inaccurate particulars and initiated penalty proceedings by issuing show caused notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income which is evident in the las…

Shri Semadri Bhagwan Pradhan, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 307/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3133/Ahd/2014 & 307/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Semadri Bhagvan Pradhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), 176, Indira Nagar, Hira Baug, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat [Pan: Akspp 3368 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 09.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Dated 08-09-2014 & The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Surat [In Short “The Cit(A)’] Dated 23-12-2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Respectively. 2. Additional Grounds During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Has Raised Additional Grounds, Which Are As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Enhancing The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.40,81,465/- U/S.251(10) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 On Account Of Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts Treated As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals)

Section 251(1)Section 251(10)

…te of particular of incomes, whereas the penalty has been imposed by the AO on account of concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty is not tenable in law, in the light of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.), wherein it was held that where the AO was initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and imposing penalty for concealment of income, the order imposing penalty had to be made only on ground of which penalty proceedings had been initiated and it could not be on fresh ground of which assessee had no notice,…

Semadri Bhagvan Pradhan, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3133/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3133/Ahd/2014 & 307/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Semadri Bhagvan Pradhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), 176, Indira Nagar, Hira Baug, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat [Pan: Akspp 3368 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 09.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Dated 08-09-2014 & The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Surat [In Short “The Cit(A)’] Dated 23-12-2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Respectively. 2. Additional Grounds During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Has Raised Additional Grounds, Which Are As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Enhancing The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.40,81,465/- U/S.251(10) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 On Account Of Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts Treated As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals)

Section 251(1)Section 251(10)

…te of particular of incomes, whereas the penalty has been imposed by the AO on account of concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty is not tenable in law, in the light of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.), wherein it was held that where the AO was initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and imposing penalty for concealment of income, the order imposing penalty had to be made only on ground of which penalty proceedings had been initiated and it could not be on fresh ground of which assessee had no notice,…

M/S.G.L.Pangam & Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 18(2)(2) Now ITO Ward 21(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5860/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon. & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon.M/S. G.L. Pangam & Vs. Ito, Ward-18(2)(2), Associates, 201, Vishal, (Now Ito Ward- S.K. Bole Road, Dadar 21(2)(2), Mumbai. (West(), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah – CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar–Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…respond to one of the two charges on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. To defence of his argument, ld.AR relied on the following decisions:- 3 1) CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) 2) CIT vs. Samson Perinchery [(2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom)] 3) M/s. Nishigandha Trading Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.7244/Mum/2017, dated 09/08/2019) Ld.AR, therefore submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions, the appeal of the assessee may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO to delete the penalty. 6. Ld.DR, on the other hand,…

Smt. Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Sh.O.P.Kantआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.571/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjog Kapoor, Sr.DR

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

…e said initiation of penalty proceedings. In the absence of the same, there is no merit in the penalty order passed in the case. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). We hold that in the absence of recording proper satisfaction, while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act suffers from infirmity. Hence, the same is cancelled. Ground of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Orde…

Nipra Packaging Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4737/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4735/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4736/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4737/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Nipra Packaging Private The Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- D/701, Shri Marigold 5(2), Room No. 1908, 19 Th बनाम/ Gundechaval, Flower, Thakur Floor, Air India Building, Vs. Village, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 101 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn1427F अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P Kaushik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.11.19 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.19

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P Kaushik, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर ससिंह, न्याययक सदस्य एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4735/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4736/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4737/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Nipra Packaging Private The Dy. Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- D/701, Shri Marigold 5(2), Room No. 1908, 19 th बन…

Nipra Packaging Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4736/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4735/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4736/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4737/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Nipra Packaging Private The Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- D/701, Shri Marigold 5(2), Room No. 1908, 19 Th बनाम/ Gundechaval, Flower, Thakur Floor, Air India Building, Vs. Village, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 101 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn1427F अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P Kaushik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.11.19 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.19

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P Kaushik, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर ससिंह, न्याययक सदस्य एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4735/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4736/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4737/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Nipra Packaging Private The Dy. Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- D/701, Shri Marigold 5(2), Room No. 1908, 19 th बन…

Nipra Packaging Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4735/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4735/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4736/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4737/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Nipra Packaging Private The Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- D/701, Shri Marigold 5(2), Room No. 1908, 19 Th बनाम/ Gundechaval, Flower, Thakur Floor, Air India Building, Vs. Village, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 101 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn1427F अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P Kaushik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.11.19 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.19

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P Kaushik, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर ससिंह, न्याययक सदस्य एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4735/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4736/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4737/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Nipra Packaging Private The Dy. Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- D/701, Shri Marigold 5(2), Room No. 1908, 19 th बन…

Ankeet Cottage Industries, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (3), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 574/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 271(1)(c)

…oceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars. The AO imposed penalty for concealment of income which is not maintainable in view of decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4. 4. Shri S.P. Walimbe, the DR did not dispute the same. 5. We find that the AO recorded its satisfaction in para 2.9 of the assessment order that the assessee filed inaccurate particulars and initiated penalty proceedings by issuing show caused notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income which is evident in the las…

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Ampro Forms Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6079/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Ampro Forms Private Limited Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor 501-A, Vaibhav Apartment Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jambli Galli, Borivali (West) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aadca4479K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)Section 69C

…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…

Avinash Anant Kulkarni, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1896/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Avinash Anant Kulkarni, C-11, Kapil Malhar, Baner Road, Pune-411045. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abcpk7943F बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-7(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Pune Dated 31.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A)-3, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961; Levied By The Learned Ao, Amounting To Rs. 2,39,867/- (Being 100% On The Addition Amount Of Rs 9,05,997) For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars & Concealment Of Income On Account Of Non Disclosure Of Officers Superannuation Funds Received From Cosmo Films Ltd. 2. The Learned L-T Authorities Erred In Not Appreciating That The Purpose Of Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 Is Willful Concealment Of Income, Leading To Evasion / Avoidance Of Tax. The Learned L-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That Appellant Was Under Bonafide Belief That Tax Compliance W.R.T. Superannuation Funds Received Have Already Been Complied With.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani

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

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 8. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Nikhil P. Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. - 38, (Now DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(3)), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5931/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mihir C. M., A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Jang Pangi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…decisions: a) CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows(SC) (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 Karnataka – SLP dismissed as reported in (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) b) CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) c) CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) d) CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery ITXA No.1310 of 2014 order dated 10.01.2017 (Bom. – HC) 6. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Case CIT Vs Shri Samson Perinchery & CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery (supra) has held that penalty can not be levied where the AO has issued notice in a machanical manner without striking off the redundant limb…

Fairdeal Tradelink Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(1), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3445/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathafairdeal Tradelink Company, C/O. K K Khadaria & Co. A-401, Pearl Arcade, Opp. P.K.Jewellers, Off J P Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 007 Pan:Aabff4424C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito 19(1)(5), Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : S/Shri R.C.Jain & Ajay Dbaga Respondent By : Ms.Samatha Mullamudi Date Of Hearing : 04/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/11/2019

For Appellant: S/Shri R.C.Jain & Ajay DBagaFor Respondent: Ms.Samatha Mullamudi

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Fairdeal Tradelink Company, C/o. K K Khadaria & Co. A-401, Pearl Arcade, Opp. P.K.Jewellers, Off J P Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 007 PAN:AABFF4424C ...... Appellant Vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 007 ..... Respondent Appellant by : S/Shri R.C.Jain & Ajay DBaga Respondent by : Ms.Samatha Mullamudi Date of hearing : 04/11/2019 Date of pronouncement : 05/11/2019 ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee agains…

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

What is CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

Rajivji Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

Macchindra T. Pagire, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar

Manisha Sai and Dare Construction Co., Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar

M/S.Krish Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-4, Thane

Thomas Cook (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT 1(3), Mumbai

Ankeet Cottage Industries, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (3), Aurangabad

Shri Semadri Bhagwan Pradhan, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), Surat

Semadri Bhagvan Pradhan, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Surat

M/S.G.L.Pangam & Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 18(2)(2) Now ITO Ward 21(2)(2), Mumbai

Smt. Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

Nipra Packaging Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

Nipra Packaging Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

Nipra Packaging Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

Ankeet Cottage Industries, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (3), Aurangabad

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Ampro Forms Private Limited, Mumbai

Avinash Anant Kulkarni, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Pune

Nikhil P. Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. - 38, (Now DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(3)), Mumbai

Fairdeal Tradelink Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(1), Mumbai