Patel Vs. ACIT, 80 Taxmann.com 162 (Gujarat HC) 4. Pr. CIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar

Snt Controls Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-18, Mumbai

In the result, these assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 271 To 273/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Snt Controls Ltd. Cit(A)-18 Vs. B-9, Nandjyot Indl Mumbai-400 021 Estate, Safed Pool Andheri Kurla Road Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 072 Pan : Aadcs8781N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ances of the case assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26, where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 3 SNT controls Ltd. 7. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent we set aside the order’s of Ld.CIT(A) and delete the levy of penalty. 8. In the result, these assessee’s appeals are allowed. Pronounced…

ITO-22(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nilesh K. Parikh, Mumbai

Accordingly, these appeals by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) I.T.A. No.331 & 333/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11) Vs. Nilesh K Parikh Ito-22(2)(1) 312, 3Rd Floor 505, Ankur Building Piramal Chambers K G Marg, Prabhadevi Lal Baug, Parel Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aajpp2095F

…tances of the case, in our considered opinion, assessee cannot be visited with the rigors of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26, where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. In the present case, in our considered opinion, the conduct of the assessee is not contumacious in order to levy the penalty. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A). 6. Before parting, we may add…

Dy CIT-Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S. Bhawani Engineering Works, Thane

In the result, these revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 1213 & 1214/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Dcit, Circle-1, Thane Bhawani Engineering Works Vs. Room No.22, Unit No.2, Block No.2 B-Wing, 6Th Floor Rajshree Industrial Complex Ashar It Park Chitalsar, Manpada Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane(W)-400 610 Thane(W)-400 604 Pan : Aaefb1471C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ances of the case assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26, where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 6. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from Sa…

Dattatray Associates, Mumabai vs. ITO (Appeal)-1, Thane

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

…s of the present case, I find that assessee is not guilty of any such conduct. The assessee’s conduct is also not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty. In this regard, I draw support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa 82 ITR 26 for the proposition that the authority may not levy penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not contumacious. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, I set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the penalty. 6. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed. 3 Pronounced in the open court on 14 .12.2021 (…

Shri Hajaram P. Purohit, Mumbau vs. ACIT Cent Cir-36, Mumbai

In the result, these assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. Nos.7634 & 7635/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08)

…ed basis. In these backgrounds, in our considered opinion assessee cannot be visited with the rigours of penalty u.s 271(1)(c). In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26, where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 6. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the order’s of Ld.CIT(A) and delete the levy of penalty. 7. In the result, these assessee’s appeals are allowed. Pronounced in the open court…

Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Girja Infra Projects P. Ltd., Thane

In the result, this revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm)

…ances of the case assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26, where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 4 5. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeal before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from S…

Kamlesh M. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N.Prasad (Jm)

…of the case, assessee cannot be visited with the rigors of penalty in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee here is not guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa 82 ITR 26 has held that the authority may not levy penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. On the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, assessee conduct cannot be said to be contumacious. 7. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside order of authorities below and delete t…

ITO-32(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pravin Dayaldas Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, these revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

…ances of the case assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26, where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 8. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from Sa…

ACIT-12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mudrika Labels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…ances of the case assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26, where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 7. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from Sa…

ACIT 26 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ghanshyam T Gursahani, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT-26(1) Vs. Shri Ghanshyam T. Gursahani Room No.623, 6th Floor C-602, Sagar Swapna Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mulund (W) Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 080 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No. AABPG6912E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri T.S. Khalsa Assessee by None Date of Hearing 29/07/2021 Date of Pronouncement 02/08/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA AM This appeal by the revenue is against order of learned CIT(A)-40, Mumbai dated 23/10/2…

ITO Ward 1 (1), Thane vs. Anantrai Manilal Sheth HUF, Mumbai

In the result revenues 's appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. No’S. 73,74 & 75/Mum/2020 (Assessment Years 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) Vs. Anantai Manilal Sheth, Ito Ward-1(1) Room No.21, B-Wing Huf 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park B-601, 6Th Floor, Smita Wagle Industrial Estate Chs Dr.Ambedkar Road, Thane(W)-400 604 Mulund(W) Mumbai-400 080

…ces of the case assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the honorable Supreme Court in the case of the state of Orissa 82 ITR 26 wherein, it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 5. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from sale…

M/S Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 13 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all assessee’s appeals are allowed

…’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproduct Pvt.Ltd. [322 ITR 158]. 3 Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt.Ltd. 8. In this regard, we are draw the support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26 wherein it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 9. We are further of the opinion that mere assessee going for settlement of dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme in quantum addition cannot be reason to sustain the penalty. Penalty is to be levied under provision secti…

ITO-12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mainframe Computers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & C.N.Prasad , Jm

…nces of the case, assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26, where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assesee is not found to be contumacious. 6. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from…