“concealment of income”

Royal Rich Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Royal Rich Developers Dcit Cc- 4(4), Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, बनाम/ Building, Nariman Point, Mahavir General Store, 154, Vs. Mumbai. Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr2578J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2839/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit Cc- 4(4), Royal Rich Developers Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India Building, बनाम/ C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mahavir General Store, Vs. 154, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

relevant limb is not specified / marked whereas the basis for imposition of penalty is held to be concealment of income. 3. Without prejudice to above, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law in imposing the penalty and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the same on the basis of statement ... relevant limb in which AO proposes to initiate levy penalty, i.e., either for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. He further submitted that now this issue is squarely covered by the decision of full bench of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

inaccurate particulars. [Para 9] The revenue contended that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they were incorrect, it amounted to concealment of income. It was argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms: (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently ... well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

inaccurate particulars. [Para 9] The revenue contended that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they were incorrect, it amounted to concealment of income. It was argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms: (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently ... well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed

Shobha Chidambara\M, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

addition of alleged non-genuine purchases was made on an estimated basis and on a difference of opinion; and there was neither concealment of income nor filing of inaccurate of income, as the Appellant had furnished all material particulars in support of its claim of purchases further supported ... Assessing Officer did not cancel the irrelevant portion in the notice as to whether the Assessee has concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars of income, and thereby no specific charge was created against the Assessee. 3. Your Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify

Shri Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

assessment proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty 4 ITA.NO. 1926 & 1927/MUM/2021 ... purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished complete

Shri Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

assessment proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty 4 ITA.NO. 1926 & 1927/MUM/2021 ... purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished complete

ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

facts are properly disclosed by the appellant in the return of income. In view of this, it is not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. I am satisfied that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty

DE vs. Hibhai P Dungrani, Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Shri Gagan Goyal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

Penalty u/s 271(1)c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income.” 6 Devshibhai P. Dungrani ITA Nos. 4714, 5463 & 4715/M/2018 3. Similarly, the Assessing Officer estimated the commission expenses as the assessee must have incurred expenses considering the facts

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

assessee had offered no explanation about the source and nature of deposits in its HSBC accounts, this was a case of concealment of income and therefore the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) was also as per law?" 2. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... therefore the quantum addition was in accordance with law, and in view of failure to provide details this was a case of concealment of income and the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) was also as per law ?" 3. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

facts disclosed on record as per the appellant's return of income, computation of. income and financials and would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The deduction claimed is also a debatable issue and involves difference of opinion as is evident from the treatment

Shri Pravin Champalal Bokadia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-19(2) (5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.07/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2011-12) Shri Pravin Champalal Bokadia, 77, Dr. Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Kumbharwada, Near Cp Tank, Mumbai -400 004. Pan: Aaqpb-4778-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito,Ward 19(2)(5), Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Grant Road(W) Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

Supreme Court of India in the case of T.Ashok Pai vs. CIT292 ITR 11(SC) has held that the expression ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars’ carry different connotations. 5. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammad Farhan Shaikh vs. DCIT

Mukund Trikamlal Parmar, Hyderabad vs. ITO 32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhmukund Trikamlal Vs. Ito-32(2)(3), Parmar, C/O P. Murali & Room No. 305, 3 Rd Floor, Co. Chartered C-11, Pratyakshkar Accountants, 6-3- Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 655/2/3, Somajiguda, Complex, Bandra (E), Hyderabad – 500082 Mumbai - 500051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapp9619E Appellant .. Respondent

Recreation (P) Ltd. (2021) 130 taxmann.co 379 (SC) held that where there was no record of satisfaction by A.O in relation to any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by assessee in notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), same being sine

Gautam Hiralal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed reversing the findings of the lower authorities

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gautam Hiralal Gandhi The Dcit, 1801, Chandanbala, Circle 22(1) Retilal R Thakkar Marg, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Malabar Hill S.O, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 006 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabpg7668F Assessee By : Shri Rajnikant Chaniyari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

addition of Rs.2,97,122/-. On the same, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the Act were initiated separately for ‘concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. Accordingly, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,25,83,380/-. 06. Assessee did not prefer ... Officer. Further, in the assessment order also, the learned Assessing Officer was not sure whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or has concealed the income. In such circumstances, the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer suffers from severe defects. The issue is squarely covered in favour

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rational Art & Press Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Rational Art & Press Pvt. Central Circle-8(1), Ltd., Vs. Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 21, Nirmal, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr7185E Appellant Respondent : Mr. T. Shankar.Dr Revenue By : Mr. Siddharth Kothari. Ar Assessee By : 18/05/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 26/05/2022 Pronouncement Order

applied his mind and non striking of charge in the penalty notice i.e. whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of in accurate particulars of income. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court of Bombay in Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal ... present case, the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty as the A.O has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld.DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any new cogent material

ACIT 3(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sjr Commodities & Consulting Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the order of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Acit M/S Sjr Commodities & Circle 3(2)(1) Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, 73-C, Su-Raj House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Cross Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacs9779H Assessee By : Shri Vishal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Harmesh Lal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022

letter dated 11th March, 2019 stating that disallowance under Section 10A of the Act was made on adhoc basis and there is no concealment of income. Meanwhile, the order of learned CIT (A) in quantum proceedings was challenged before the co- ordinate Bench in ITA no. 4548/Mum/2017. This appeal ... Para 6.6 to 6.8 as under:- “6.6 As evident from the above, it is pertinent to note that the penalty under consideration for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) was levied on account of two additions. One, addition on account of estimated turnover of SEZ unit which

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Gentech Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

said judgement is reproduced below:- “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