“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

part relief was granted to the assessee as discussed (supra) and according to him, the AO has erroneously held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income chargeable to tax to the tune of A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Radhika Dipan Mehta Rs.10,21,310/- and levied ... order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The instant case was not the case of concealment of the income. That was not the case of the revenue either

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

part relief was granted to the assessee as discussed (supra) and according to him, the AO has erroneously held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income chargeable to tax to the tune of A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Radhika Dipan Mehta Rs.10,21,310/- and levied ... order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The instant case was not the case of concealment of the income. That was not the case of the revenue either

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

under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein penalty of Rs. 2,84,756 was levied on the basis that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In further appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 06/09/2021 confirmed the levy of penalty, however, granted partial relief ... only estimated the gross profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases without there being any conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions, we direct the AO to delete the penalty Shobha Chidambaram ITA No.1913/Mum./2021 levied under

Asst. CIT-28(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Jemes Paskal Dsilva, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 28(1) Vs. Shri James Paskal Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor Dsilva 6Th Tower, Vashi Railway C-305, 1St Floor, Station Complex, Vashi, Vashi Plaza, Sector – Navi Mumbai – 400703. 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400705. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adtpd7480P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S.N. Kabra. Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri. Prayag Jha.Ar Date Of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

made addition of R$.8,05, 70,000/- while passing Assessment Order. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee aggrieved with the Assessment Order filed this appeal. 3 The following Grounds of Appeal have been taken

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

respect of addition of unsecured loans in the original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and ₹.5,81,309/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of purchases of ₹.18,81,261 (being 8% Gross Profit of ₹.2,35,15,773/-) initiated penalty against the re-assessment proceedings ... 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 Chirag R. Shah made by the Assessing Officer. Against

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

respect of addition of unsecured loans in the original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and ₹.5,81,309/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of purchases of ₹.18,81,261 (being 8% Gross Profit of ₹.2,35,15,773/-) initiated penalty against the re-assessment proceedings ... 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 Chirag R. Shah made by the Assessing Officer. Against

Mrs Mamta Sharad Gupta, Thane vs. The ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income.” 4. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 5. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before ITAT. 6. I have

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

income of the assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 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

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.

fraud or negligence. If he fails to do so, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof and consequently liable for penalty provided by the section. b) Further in the case of IT v. Musaddilal Ram Bharose ... learned DDIT (IT)-1(1) (1), Mumbai, levying penalty of Rs. 4,39,16,910/- for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. We would like to state that your honour has deleted the additions made by the learned DDIT (IT)-1(1) (1), Mumbai, vide

Blues Innovations India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalblues It Innovations Vs. Ito – 12(1)(3) India Pvt Ltd., Ab 145A, Aayakar B-101, Bhumi Enclave, Bhavan, Mahaveer Nagar, Mumbai -400020. Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4562D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. The disallowance of purchases on ad- hoc/estimated basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The A.O. has not doubted the sales and made disallowance

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

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 of the appellant

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:

issued in a Pre-printed Performa mentioning both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. “concealed particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer has to clearly communicate to the assessee, the limb for which penalty is being levied. The Hon’ble Supreme

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

course of proceedings before me for the Assessment year 2010- 11. It appears that you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me ca 12/04/2013 at 11.00AM and show cense why an order imposing ... irrelevant part in the notice to specify whether the notice was issued for levying penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is clear that the notice did not indicate whether there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DCIT Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Ravi Dyeware Company P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15

total income of the assessee company. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and/or concealment of particulars of income.” 4. The Assessing Officer find that the assessee has received dividend income of Rs.6,36,452/- and claimed

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

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 any appeal and therefore, penalty proceedings initiated were ... learned Assessing 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

though the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the penalty was being imposed namely for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, Assessing Officer was clear and penalty was imposed for concealing particular of income. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... Assessing Officer earlier has passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.03.2013 for the same assessment year for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Whereas in the subsequent penalty order, which was passed on 31.01.2020, the A.O. has observed that the Hon’ble ITAT vide order dated

PAN India Networks Infravest Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ty. CIT (OSD) CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepan India Networks Infravest Limited V. Dcit- Central Circle – 7(1) 135, Continental Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aaccp2459H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Bhansali Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

failed to appreciate that in the instant case, the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that a disallowance arising ... Assessing Officer has not specified any limb for which the notice was issued i.e., either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notice and specifying the charge for which notice was issued

Rajeshkumar Chamaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 14. The A.O. has made addition of Rs.31,17,795/- by estimating Gross profit(GP) @ 0.55%, treating both the sundry creditors and sundry