“concealment of income”

S.F.Dyes /Firm, Mumbai vs. A.C.Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 S.F. Dyes/Firm A.C. Circle 17(1), First Floor, Hague Building, 9 Sprott Bandra Kurla Complex Road ,Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aacfs 5153 J Appellant Respondent

routine printed form without specifying as to the exact reason i.e. whether for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for which action u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated. 3. That the proceedings have been initiated on account of the alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ... which was in the printed format which has not been appropriately marked to show as to for which of the two defaults i.e. concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on which the A.O. proposes to impose penalty and that this would lead to an inference

Omprakash G. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(2) (4), Mumbai

purely on estimation basis after rejections of books result and there was no clinching evidence in possession of the A.O. of concealment of income; d. in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act as well as penalty order, the charge for which ... been levied, is not specific and both the limbs of charge are mentioned there that is, 'concealment of income' and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income'. 1.3 The Appellant submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law no such penalty is livable. 1.4 The Appellant

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

Penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated concealment of income by furnishing of inaccurate particulars in respect of the same.” 10. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed certain additional documents to substantiate his claim of loans as genuine

Mr. Ajit Mahadeo Vaze, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

income was offered to tax only when he received notice by the Department. Therefore, it is obvious that the factum of concealment of income is clearly established in this case. The case laws cited by the appellant are not relevant 'because in all the cited cases, the assessee had either ... claimed wrong deduction, or made a computation error, whereas in the case of the assessee, there is deliberate concealment of income considering the totality of the facts, I have come to a conclusion that the AO has rightly imposed penalty in this case and consequently penalty order

DCIT 4 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skf India Ltd., Mumbai

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

relevant provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are reproduced here-in-below: “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. Section 271: (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this ... 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

ITO 8 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Sun Colorants Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

imposed in respect of the purchases which were conclusively proved to be bogus & thus there was furnishing of accurate particulars of income & also concealment of income. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order

Nandivardhan Construction Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4973/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ Nandivardhan Construction Dcit, Central Circle-2 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Wagle Industrial Estate Stone, Near Gajanan (West), Thane-400604. Maharaj Temple Ram Maruti Road, Thane-West, Thane- 400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1260G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Recording Any Satisfaction Is Bad In Law & The Consequential Penalty Order

thereafter the assessment was completed by raising the addition. The penalty u/s 271(c) of the Act was initiated for the concealment of income and for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, the penalty to the tune of Rs.6 ... No.4973/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2007-08 Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. Even before us, the learned Additional Solicitor General while placing the order of assessment laid emphasis that

M/S. Rinira Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD.11(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Rinira Technologies Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 11(1)(2) Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor 110, Shiv Ashish, 66-S.V. Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai - 40058 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcr7702C (Appellant) (Respondent)

claim u/s 10B is not allowed by the learned assessing officer. Mere disallowance of claim made cannot be a case of Either Concealment of Income or Furnishing of Inaccurate particulars of Income. Hence 3 M/s. Rinira Technologies Pvt. Ltd., it is prayed that penalty sustained by CIT Appeals be cancelled ... proper in which Assessing Officer has not highlighted on which ground the penalty was initiated, whether on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Further he brought to our notice finding of the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order in Para No 14 in which Assessing Officer

Harmeet Singh Sablok, Mumbai vs. The ITO WD 22(1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleharmeet Singh Sablok V. Income Tax Officer – 22(1)(5) A/24, Queens Park Premises Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers Juhu, Santacruz (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Alrps3621D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Turalkar Department By Smt Bharati Singh

A.Y.2010- 11, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its 4 Harmeet Singh Sablok 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 levied by the Assessing Officer. Against this ... 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

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

added to the total income of the assessee for the year. Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income” 12. It clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has made total addition of unaccounted receipts found in 15 red colored notebooks was already made

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

added to the total income of the assessee for the year. Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income” 12. It clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has made total addition of unaccounted receipts found in 15 red colored notebooks was already made

Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Kalyan

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1697/मुं/2018("न.व.2010-11) Shri Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, C/O. Suresh N. Otwani, 305, 3Rd Floor, Adamji Building, 413, Katha Bazar, Mumbai- 400 009 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Abfpr-8942-L बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)- 421 301. : ""थ"/ Respondent

penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has to record satisfaction in an unambiguous manner that the penalty proceedings 4 are being initiated separately for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as the case may be. In the present case, the absence of such satisfaction in the assessment order

Tara Kabra, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

added to total income of assessee u/s 69A under Income from Other Sources- Penalty proceedings are initiated separately for concealment of income.” 14. Upon assessee’s appeal in this regard learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition holding as under : 10. During the course of search, cash of Rs.21

S.S. Metal &Alloys, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Thane

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

respectively, 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 made by the Assessing Officer. Against this order of the Ld.CIT ... 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

S.S. Metal &Alloys, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Thane

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

respectively, 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 made by the Assessing Officer. Against this order of the Ld.CIT ... 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

DCIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Clsa Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee for both the A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accoutant Member)

merit, whereas the assessee is before us by way of C.Os, that the Assessing Officer has not specified the relevant limb of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the notice issued for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that identical ... CLSA LTD. 13 and 2013-14 and submitted that A.O has not striken out relevant limb of either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in these notices. He submitted that in view of the above, issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision

ITO -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Brijesh Raithatha, Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income.”(Emphasis supplied) ITA. No. 100/M/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against Post-Revision Assessment Order

Kavita Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26(2), Mumbai

been levied, is not specified and both the limbs of charge are mentioned there that is, „concealment of income and „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 1.3 The Appellant submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law no such penalty is livable. 1.4 The Appellant