K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

Rameshkumar D.Rawal, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, for statistical purpose, appeal filed by the appellant is treated is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Rameshkumar D. Rawal Ito 14(1)(2), Mumbai 11, 3Rd Floor, Ovalwadi, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400002 Pan No.Aabpr3423R .. Appellant Respondent .. None Assessee By Revenue By .. B.S Bist, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 08-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 08-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

…the part of the assessee to rebut the findings of the AO and also to establish that penalty was not leviable. In this regard, the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court extracted and reproduced hereafter provide necessary guidance. 1. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT -251 ITR 99 SC Penalty under s. 271(1) (c) -Explanation to s. 271(1) (c) is a part of s. 271 - When the ITO or the AAC issues a notice u/s 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof including the Explanation are to be used against him Therefore, the assessee is put to notice that if he does not prove, in the circumstances stated in the Expla…

Automobiles Products of India Ltd, Chennai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 7584/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

…the assessee has failed to furnish the explanation as are required as per mandate of ITA7584/Mum/2013 4 Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to come out of clutches of penalty leviable. The A.O. relied on the following decisions:- 1. K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT, (2001)251 ITR 99 (SC) 2. Raghuvir Soni v. ACIT, (2002) 258 ITR 239 (Rajasthan HC) 3. UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles (2008) 174 Taxman 571(SC) The AO distinguished the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 189 Taxman 322(SC) . Thus, penalty was levied by the A.O. u/s…

ITO WD 1(3), Thane vs. Amar Diamond Tools, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7671/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito, Ward – 1(1), Amar Diamond Tools Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Shivdarshan Building, Mumbai बनाम/ Ashar It Park, Road No. 16-Z, Pune Road, Mumbra, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 612 Thane (W)-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfa 7543 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Bhatt

…s. Case law in the matter is legion, and toward which we may advert to the following decisions, viz. Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); and CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB). 7 ITO vs. Amar Diamond Tools 5. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in, vacating the findings of the ld. CIT(A), uphold the levy of penalty in the…

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

…penalty is trite law, and for which case law is legion, to some of which we may refer to, as follows: Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC);Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB). What the assessee has acquired (at a cost of Rs.185 lacs, also incurring the obligation for a peppercorn rent of Rs.500/- per month), is an interest in a residenti…

Sbi Dfhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7433/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Sbi Dfhi Limited Asst. Cit, Range 2(1), बनाम/ 23, 3Rd Floor, Voltas House, J. N. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Heradia Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 0532 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhavin Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 15.10.2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 23.11.2010. 2 Sbi Dfhi Limited Vs. Asst. Cit 2. The Sole Issue, Agitated Per Four Grounds By The Assessee, As Under, Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Assessee’S Claim For Unabsorbed Deposition (For Rs.41,68,938/-) In The Computation Of Its’ Book Profit U/S. 115 Jb Of The Act, At Rs. 4 Lacs, I.E., At A Little Over 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded Thereon: ‘1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(L)(C) Of The Act By The Learned Assessing Officer.

…, and the case law in the matter legion, and toward which we may cite some celebrated decisions, viz Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB): ‘Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271 (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner Appeals in the course of any pr…

Amish R. Kapadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(30(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1858/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Amish R. Kapadia Ito, Ward – 12(3)(2), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Indian Mercantile Mansion, Madam Kama Road, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk 4127 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhirendra M. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. R. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.5.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2010, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 31.3.2009. The Only Issue In Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), Levied In The Sum Of Rs.6,08,170/-, I.E., At The Minimum Rate Of 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

…series of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court, to some of which we may refer, in illustration, viz.: Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); besides by the hon’ble high courts as well, as CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB). As abundantly clarified, a plausible explanation saves penalty. It is the plausibility of this explanation with the…

M/S Star Gold Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Cir -5(3), Mumbai

…nceal the particulars its income.After considering the explanation of the assessee,the AO held that presence of mensrea was not required to be established.He referred to the cases of B.A. Balasubramanium (236ITR977), Jeevanlal Shah (205ITR244),K P Madhusudan (251 ITR 99) , Shree Krishna Trading Company(253 ITR645) Dharmendra Textile Processers and observed that the assessee had filed any appeal against the additions made during the assessment proceedings, that it had admitted its default. Finally,the AO levied a penalty of Rs.18,16,640/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5.…