“concealment of income”

ITO 32 (2)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri. Priteh Mafatlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

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) deleted the penalty made by the Assessing Officer. Against this order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue ... 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

A.T. Trade Overseas P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC- 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blea.T. Trade Overseas Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(4) A-601 Cello Trihumph 802, 8Th Floor I.B. Patel Road, Goregaon (E) Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai – 400063 Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aacca7944A Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

material which is submitted before settlement commission and Assessing Officer can make the addition based on the proper evidences on concealment of income or any evidences which proves that assessee has not disclosed its proper income. In the given case, it is also fact on record that in the search

Sterling Investment Corporation P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT-Appeals-8, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharshiआअसं. 1667/मुं/2020(िन.व.2015-16) Sterling Investment Corporation : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pvt Ltd, 41/44, S P Centre, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai Pan: Aaaccs5467L बनाम/ Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Appeals-(8) : ""थ"/ Respondent Mumbai

Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt ... 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 the expenditure, which claim

M/S. Spark Gems, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 4. Upon assessee appealed learned CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s order as under : “I have considered the facts of the case

Triumph International Finance India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.195 To 197/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03)

that in the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act the assessing officer has not satisfied whether the penalty to be levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case ... officer has not specified in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We have gone through the copy of notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the I.T. Act, dated

Memon Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5990/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Memon Co-Op Bank Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-1(3)(2) C/O Memon Co-Op Bank Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ltd, Patel & Sony Arcade, Mumbai-400020. 234 Bellasis Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat0066G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Toprani Revenue By: Ajay Chandra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.70,61,337/- U/S 271(1)(C). B. The Learned C.1.T. (A) Failed To Appreciate That:

voluntarily given up. The ld. CIT(A) also concluded that the Assessing Officer has not identified the type of particulars of income or concealment of income by the assessee merely not filing details called for, which was not in a position to be submit and claiming the loss which they ... have already given up. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that assessee has not concealed the income for invoking the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have given the careful consideration to the finding of ld. CIT(A) and find that there was a sufficient and justifiable

Virgo Valves & Controls Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

this consolidated order, this action was in the nature of a corporate guarantee. It is in this connection that the impugned penalty for concealment of income has been levied which has been upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 27. We have

Virgo Valves & Controls Ltd. (Now Virgo Valves & Controls Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 1(3), Mumbai

this consolidated order, this action was in the nature of a corporate guarantee. It is in this connection that the impugned penalty for concealment of income has been levied which has been upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 27. We have

Virgo Valves & Controls Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

this consolidated order, this action was in the nature of a corporate guarantee. It is in this connection that the impugned penalty for concealment of income has been levied which has been upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 27. We have

Virgo Valves & Controls Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

this consolidated order, this action was in the nature of a corporate guarantee. It is in this connection that the impugned penalty for concealment of income has been levied which has been upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 27. We have

Oriental Fabritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.13(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.1425/मुं/2021 िन.व.2009-10) Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. C/So D.C.Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Willie Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaaco8702A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Range- 1(2)(4), Room No. 537, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short

invoked. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT 292 ITR 11 has held the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. Thus, the AO is duty bound to clearly convey to the assessee the limb for which penalty

New India Roadways & Sunrise Stone Industries (Jv), Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2) (4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

unexplained expenditure. Penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the I .Tax Act is initiated separately for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Against the above order assessee appealed before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) concluded as under :- From the above it is clear that

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

assessee under the head Income from Other Sources. Penalty proceedings U/s. 271(l)(c) of the IT, Act, are initiated separately for concealment of Income.” 6. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before learned CIT(A). 7. Before learned CIT(A) assessee submitted additional evidence. Learned

Zee Fabrics Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT-18(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1510/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

total income of the assessee. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated for concealment of income. This was further confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by such order passed by Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before