“concealment of income”

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ito. Int Tax Ward Rita Hemchand Gandhi 2(3)(1) Ayodhya Apartments, 17Th Floor, Air India Flat No.101, Ramgali, Vs. Building, Kandivali (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P

levied. c) The AO erred in not considering several judicial pronouncements where it has been held that Bonafide mistakes do not constitute the concealment of Income.” 03. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a non- resident and has not filed any return of income for assessment year ... total income of the assessee at ₹ 6,539,254/–. The learned assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (C) for concealment of income of ₹ 6,539,254 as the assessee offered the income for taxation only after issue of notice under section 148 of the act. 04. During

Rajesh Jugraj Madhani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

penalty can be levied. c) The appellant further submits that several judicial pronouncements have held that bonafide mistakes do not constitute the concealment of Income.” 3. In ground No. 1 and 2, assessee has contested that Ld. CIT (A) has passed an ex parte order and without dealing the appeal

Ms M K Shah and Co., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Jayantilal M Shah, a partner of the assessee firm. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1) (C) of the Act were also initiated separately for the concealment of income. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assess’s appeal by impugned ex–parte order

Vijaykumar Shrikant Ghatge, Nashik Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), India

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijakumar Shrikant Ghatge Commissioner Of Income Tax Niramay, Matoshri Nagar, (Appeals) Tidke Colony, Nashik Training School, National Faceless Appeal Centre Vs. Nashik-422 007 (Nfac) North Block, Delhi-110 001

known as Lifeline Hospital and Medical Research Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. where penalty amounting to Rs.12,65,157/- was levied for concealment of income amounting to Rs.40,94,361/-. 8. The ld. CIT(A) had then passed the ex parte order in the name of the present assessee, confirming

Mitesh Rameshbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were also initiated separately for 3 Mitesh Rameshbhai Patel furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed the aforesaid addition made

Chandraiah Balanna Kalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT 42(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in not mentioning whether the notice has been issued towards "Concealment of income" or "for furnishing of inaccurate particulars", thus, the above notice itself is invalid and bad in law further in assessment order also the initiation has been ... carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. Finally, respectfully following the binding judicial precedents as cited aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned

ITO-23(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Chetak Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

have noted the factual position. The assessee understood the notice to be under both heads, namely, furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. This is evident from the assessee's reply dated 08.04.2015 to the show cause notice dated 12.03.2015. Therefore, the decision in the case of K.Lubna does ... carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. Finally, respectfully following the binding judicial precedents as cited aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned

Chetak Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

have noted the factual position. The assessee understood the notice to be under both heads, namely, furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. This is evident from the assessee's reply dated 08.04.2015 to the show cause notice dated 12.03.2015. Therefore, the decision in the case of K.Lubna does ... carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. Finally, respectfully following the binding judicial precedents as cited aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned