“concealment of income”

M/S A & A Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharya & A Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jt. Cit (Osd), Circle-1(1) 6/A Sindhu House, Aaykar Bhavan Naanbhoy Lane, Fort, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafca8628J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Prakash Jotwani Respondent By : Avneesh Tiwari Date Of Hearing 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

vide penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 the A.O has levied penalty of Rs. 13,71,580/- of concealment of income. 3. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai

Rameshkumar Jawanmalji Sakaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

vague as it states that “Proceeding under 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, leading to concealment of income chargeable to tax‟. 8. In view of the above, Ground No. 1 is allowed following the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional

M/S. D.R. Plastics, Mumbai vs. ITO WD, 21(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S D.R. Plastics Vs. Ito, Ward 21(1)(4) 26, Ideal Industrial Piramal Chambers Estate, Madhuradas Mumbai - 400012 Compound Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfd7223N Appellant .. Respondent

dated 15.02.2016 without specifying whether the ITA No.1542/Mum/2022 A.Y.2008-09 3 M/s D.R. Plastics Vs.ITO, Ward-21(1)(4) penalty is levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard the ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai ... head not is reproduced as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) Whether where assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section

DCIT -32(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Adinathay Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1508/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Adinathya Dcit- 32(1), Enterprises, R. No. 702, 7Th Floor, बिधम/ Shop No. 6, Harjas Chs Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Ltd. Divine Home Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra Colony, Borivali (W)M (East), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 103 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaqfa1188F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Dumane, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.12.2021, Passed By Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2012-13. 2

cannot be held that the purchases are bogus. Purchases cannot be held to have been made outside books on which the charge of concealment of income can be levied. Otherwise also, the addition has been made 4 I.T.A. No. 1508/Mum/2022 M/s Adinathya Enterprises simply by estimating GP rate ... purchases and such estimation does not mean that there was any concealment of income which was found or detected, once the source of purchases were proved from various evidences as discussed above and the trading results have not been disturbed. Accordingly, we are of the view that

Ramesh J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 823/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Ramesh J. Thakkar 26(3)(6) Mumbai 51, Moti Sagar,3Rd Road बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, Ganesh Gawde Road, Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mulund(W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 400080 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabpt4367L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Mehul Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Neeta Jeph सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3), For The Ay 2012-13. 2

THAKKAR Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the IT Act, 1961 is initiated separately for famishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 8. Ld. first Appellate authority has simply confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in the following manner. “The appellant in the appellate proceedings have

Shri Rajnish C. Bharti, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -30, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.311/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Rajnish C. Bharti बिधम/ Pcit-30, Mumbai 506B, Rajendra Vihar Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To West, Mumbai-400064. C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E)-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb6150F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C. V. Jain Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-30, Mumbai Dated 04.03.2020 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

issue involved in the. case of the HUF is completely different. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of income. 8. Considering the above, total income of the assessee is computed as under: 1 Total income as per return filed

Sabara Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

return of income and the claim of the assessee was not sustainable in law amounting to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income on the part of the assessee. The various explanations to section 271(1)( c) only explain the ambiguity in the provisions relating to imposition of penalty ... would come into play. The assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income at the time of filing return in order to conceal its income. Thus the provisions of section 271(1)(c) is clearly 13 ITA No. 3267 Mum 2013 & 404 Mum 2016-Sabara Impex Ltd. attracted in the assessee

Munich Re India Service P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

wherein it was proposed to innate penalty s/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in his assessment order, in the absence of concealment of income or fishing of inaccurate particulars on part of the Appellant. The adjustment was merely on account of difference of opinion, besides, the Appellant has neither

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

action of the AO of levying penalty of Rs.4,39,150 @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. on the aggregate concealment of income of Rs.14,21,200/-. Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed.” 5. Heard the ld. D.R and perused the material ... dated 19.11.2018 at para 8 of the penalty order the A.O simply stated that assessee has concealed his income, without specifying whether the penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particular of income or concealment of particular of income. We therefore hold that impugned order imposing penalty

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

action of the AO of levying penalty of Rs.4,39,150 @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. on the aggregate concealment of income of Rs.14,21,200/-. Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed.” 5. Heard the ld. D.R and perused the material ... dated 19.11.2018 at para 8 of the penalty order the A.O simply stated that assessee has concealed his income, without specifying whether the penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particular of income or concealment of particular of income. We therefore hold that impugned order imposing penalty

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Creation Publicity Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.5302, 5303 & 5304/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S. Creation Publicity Income Tax Officer- Limited., Ward-2(1)(2), बिधम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chamber, 66, Room No.543, 5Th Floor, Vs. Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 001 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcc2192B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Hemant Vora(Ca) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 20.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit (A)-4, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) /147 For The Ay 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2

Creation Publicity Limited., income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 are initiated separately for filing concealment of income. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the claim after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Income Tax Officer -2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.5302, 5303 & 5304/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S. Creation Publicity Income Tax Officer- Limited., Ward-2(1)(2), बिधम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chamber, 66, Room No.543, 5Th Floor, Vs. Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 001 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcc2192B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Hemant Vora(Ca) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 20.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit (A)-4, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) /147 For The Ay 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2

Creation Publicity Limited., income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 are initiated separately for filing concealment of income. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the claim after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Creation Publicity Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.5302, 5303 & 5304/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S. Creation Publicity Income Tax Officer- Limited., Ward-2(1)(2), बिधम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chamber, 66, Room No.543, 5Th Floor, Vs. Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 001 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcc2192B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Hemant Vora(Ca) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 20.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit (A)-4, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) /147 For The Ay 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2

Creation Publicity Limited., income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 are initiated separately for filing concealment of income. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the claim after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Shri Dharmendra A Babel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

various assessment years as worked out above. Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act are separately initiated for concealment of income for the various assessment years on the enhanced amount. Accordingly, Ground No. 5 of A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed, with enhancement of income.” 7. Bare perusal

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

assessee u/s 80IB(10) of Rs.3,17,76,302 stands denied. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 26. On further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) in the year under consideration has disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IB