“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Ronak Gems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle- 2(4) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt Ltd Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No. Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 004 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aabcr 7550 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. Madhuri Tambe & Aishwarya Wanikar Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2023

Appeals) that the assessee was guilty of finding of the CIT (Appeals) that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars. concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars. concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 33. In the above case, the CIT (Appeals) recorded a finding ... particulars of his income or furni assessee had concealed particulars of his income or furni assessee had concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income but for detailed reasons set out, inaccurate particulars of his income but for detailed reasons set out, inaccurate particulars

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeals, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

file any appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/Tribunal. The AO in the penalty order dated 27.08.2021 hasd imposed the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. And the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. 10. It is noted that the assessee had shown the receipt ... been initiated for “concealment of income”. And thereafter, in the penalty order dated 27.08.2021, he had found the assessee at fault for furnishing “inaccurate particulars of income”. From the aforesaid discussion it is noted that on 27.03.2015 while framing the assessment order, the AO initiated penalty proceedings

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

file any appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/Tribunal. The AO in the penalty order dated 27.08.2021 hasd imposed the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. And the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. 10. It is noted that the assessee had shown the receipt ... been initiated for “concealment of income”. And thereafter, in the penalty order dated 27.08.2021, he had found the assessee at fault for furnishing “inaccurate particulars of income”. From the aforesaid discussion it is noted that on 27.03.2015 while framing the assessment order, the AO initiated penalty proceedings

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

file any appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/Tribunal. The AO in the penalty order dated 27.08.2021 hasd imposed the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. And the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. 10. It is noted that the assessee had shown the receipt ... been initiated for “concealment of income”. And thereafter, in the penalty order dated 27.08.2021, he had found the assessee at fault for furnishing “inaccurate particulars of income”. From the aforesaid discussion it is noted that on 27.03.2015 while framing the assessment order, the AO initiated penalty proceedings

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankita Reality and Development Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

found that there was never an income which was intentionally concealed by the appellant nor a tax liability which was reduced by furnishing inaccurate particulars. By not filing the return of income the appellant was found to be not seeking for the refund due to it, to the extent

Ms. Bela Nipun Mehta, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal against the penalty confirmed by the learned CIT – A are allowed

Bench: Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Acit 19 (1) , Mumbai Ms. Bela Nipun Mehta M. K. Road, New Marine B=-121, Grand Paradi, August Lines, Churchgate, Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Vs. Mumbai-400036 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpm4988Q

assessee is mentioned in a bogus donor’s list, how one can say that assessee has not concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It was further stated that revenue does not agree with the order of the ITAT in 2604/M/2019 and it has also not been challenged ... assessment order the learned assessing officer has initiated the penalty proceedings stating that assessee has concealed the income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This is the satisfaction recorded in the assessment order. In the penalty, order also the learned AO has held that assessee has concealed

Arun Ramkrishna Patil, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm.of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane

Bench: Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 1, Arun R Patil Thane Waddle Building First Ashar It Park Sixth Floor, Floor Raw Number 16 Z Vs. Near Dns Bank Manpower Wagle Industrial Estate Road Dombivali East Thane Maharashtra 400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpm4988Q

assessee has received the above order. Therefore, in absence of the explanation by the assessee he levied the penalty of ₹ 615,887 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as per order dated 27/6/2018. 05. Assessee aggrieved with that, order has preferred an appeal before the CIT – A, he also dismissed ... notice dated 25/12/2017 issued by the learned assessing officer did not strike any of the twin charges of either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income and therefore the levy of the penalty deserves to be quashed on this point itself. 07. The learned departmental representative vehemently

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

Assessee for deduction of the above expenditures and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The said additions/disallowances on appeal stands affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner vide order dated 27.07.2011, against which the Assessee preferred 2nd appeal before ... quantum proceedings. According to AO, the assessee’s explanation is not tenable and therefore it is held that the assessee has knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

Assessee for deduction of the above expenditures and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The said additions/disallowances on appeal stands affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner vide order dated 27.07.2011, against which the Assessee preferred 2nd appeal before ... quantum proceedings. According to AO, the assessee’s explanation is not tenable and therefore it is held that the assessee has knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal

Dy.DIT., (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. Global Cricket Corporation Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Dy. Cit(It) – 3(1) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1St Floor, C/O. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. Dit (It)-3(1) C/O. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri P J Pardiwala/Aarati Sathe Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma : 16.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

struck off the irrelevant limb as to whether the penalty was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR 4 ITA Nos.171/Mum/2008, 4990/Mum/2011, 4182/Mum/2011 & CO No. 83/Mum/2012 M/s. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court ... there was no prejudice caused to the assessee and that the penalty was levied both for concealment of income as well as for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available