“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

Hapag-Lloyd Ag, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Hapag-Lloyd Ag The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Income-Tax (International Ltd. Taxation), Range -2(2)(2), Room No. 1606, 16 Th Floor, 403 & 404, Satellite Gazebo, Vs. A Wing, 4Th Floor, Guru Air India Building, Nariman Hargoindji Marg, Andheri Point, Mumbai-400 021 (East), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aacfe7262L Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates, Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270 A of the Act 14 erred in law in levying penalty on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which is not applicable u/s 270A of the Act 03. The fact shows that assessee is a limited liability company incorporated

Shri. Kirit J Kadecha, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6504/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2004-05 ) Shri Kirit Kadecha, Room No.1, Sai Sadan, Roshan Nagar, Chandavarkar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Aghpk-4337-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito-32(2)(2), Room No.108, 1St Floor, C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smitha Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

assessee in a pre-printed performa. Both the charges of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. “ concealing particulars of income” or “ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are mentioned in the said notice. The irrelevant charge/limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck ... assessment order the Assessing Officer has observed as under:- “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars leading to concealment of income.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT, 292 ITR 11 has held that

Sujata Surendra Khandekar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4135/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sujata Surendra Khandekar बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(4) 6. Federation House, 4Th Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Floor, 24/30, A.P. Marg, Mumbai-400007. Opp. Metro, Mumbai- 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpk9552B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer, Mumbai In

proceedings under the Act, he is satisfied that any person has concealed the ITA. No.4135/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, what Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates is that the penalty can be levied ... existence of any of the two situations, namely, for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is obvious from the phraseology of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act that the imposition of penalty is invited only when the conditions prescribed

Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 417/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(4) Room No.205, C-10, 2Nd 1501, B Wing, Tower-1, Vs. Vikas Paradise, Lbs Marg, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mulund (W), Mumbai- Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. 400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aobps8089J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Ekta Dodhia Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [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. The Learned Cit(A)-40 Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact Of The Case In The Right Perspective.

course of any proceedings under the Act, he is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, what Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates is that the penalty can be levied on the existence ... situations, namely, for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is obvious from the phraseology of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act that the imposition of penalty is invited only when the conditions prescribed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act exist

ACIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Manisha Manish Jaitha, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

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

before me in the appellate proceedings. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the following addition which were made in the assessment order: a. Unexplained credits in foreign bank account Rs.3

Asst. CIT-6 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Enhance Ambient Communication Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee within the meaning of that section.” This satisfaction recorded by the TPO is not a valid one, because the penalty proceedings

Trioka Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Trioka Estate Pvt Vs. Dcit – 2(3 Ltd.Citi Mall, 2Nd New Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, Andheri (W), M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400053. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5759N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi. Ar Respondent By : Mr.V.Tripathi. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Of Rs. 1,51,47,401/- (Penalty Amount Shall Modify To The Extent Of Relief Granted By Hon’Ble

legal & jurisdictional issue. The Assessing Officer (A.O) is not clear in his action whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. After hearing the submissions of the Ld.AR and the Ld.DR, the additional ground of appeal is admitted. Whereas, the Ld.AR has restricted

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Assessment Year: 2013-14

sole question arises for determination in this case is; “as to whether assessee company has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income during the assessment proceedings so as to attract the penal provisions contained under section ... challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), contended inter alia that the assessee company has intentionally concealed its income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming inadmissible amount under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act despite being pointed out by “tax audit report” and that

Shorline Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT- CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

notice does not identify the charge against the assesee as to whether the notice is meant for the charge against the assessee of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income warranting levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. In identical situation, Hon’ble jurisdictional High ... assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. 188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a communication to be valid communication

Choice Diamond, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 27/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2012-13) Choice Diamond, Cc-4101, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaafc-0677-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 19(1), 203, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 007 अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dharshti Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

income. However, in the notice both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income are mentioned. Thus, the Assessing Officer has issued notice without application of mind, without specifying the limb under section ... However, in the notice we observe both charges under section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are mentioned. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd.Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT (supra

M/S Eskay Knits (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5 (3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.7,00,77,680 under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with regard to disallowance of depreciation of Rs.12,91,79,667 as pertaining to alleged bogus plant and machinery purchased during

Shoreline Hotel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

While recording satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order, the AO has observed that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed the income. Whereas, in the order passed imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO has alleged furnishing ... under:- “(b) In the quantum order, after due deliberations, it is clearly indicated by the AO that the penalty proceeding is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars which shows due application of mind qua penalty proceedings. However, while notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued for initiation of penalty

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

view of this, purchases made of Rs.17,49,360 is treated as bogus purchase. Penalty is separately initiating u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing taxable income. [Disallowance of Rs. 17,49,360/- on account of bogus purchase] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page

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

In the result, these appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 12. After going through the details filed and discussion with the authorized representative, the total income of the assessee is computed as under