“furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

once again by not identifying one of the two offences and instead levy penalty for allegedly concealing the particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, xviii. in initiating penalty proceedings without recording his satisfaction in the assessment order or in notice that the facts recorded in assessment satisfied ... once again by not identifying one of the two offences and instead levy penalty for allegedly concealing the particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, xviii. in initiating penalty proceedings without recording his satisfaction in the assessment order or in notice that the facts recorded in assessment satisfied

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

once again by not identifying one of the two offences and instead levy penalty for allegedly concealing the particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, xviii. in initiating penalty proceedings without recording his satisfaction in the assessment order or in notice that the facts recorded in assessment satisfied ... once again by not identifying one of the two offences and instead levy penalty for allegedly concealing the particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, xviii. in initiating penalty proceedings without recording his satisfaction in the assessment order or in notice that the facts recorded in assessment satisfied

Milind Jagannath Bhole, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

In the result, in terms of paragraph 6 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

dated 25/11/2024,passed by the CIT(A). In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the penalty notice, dated 26/03/2013, does not inform the Assessee about the charge against the Assessee – whether penalty under Section

Nitin Gopinath Bhoir, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

what later on followed was the imposition of penalty. The Tribunal held that this cannot be taken as a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income inasmuch as there was a registered sale deed and there was consideration mentioned therein. That ground was raised and therefore, the document was forwarded ... Valuer and for determination of the value, by itself would not mean that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed the income. In these peculiar circumstances the imposition of penalty was not justified, is the conclusion drawn. The larger question posed for our consideration

Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4 (3)(1), Bandra

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

account of ESOP requisite to the tune of Rs.20,44,855/- and recorded the satisfaction and simultaneously initiated the penalty proceeding for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the taxable income. Thereafter the AO issued a show cause notice of penalty proceedings ... ultimately levied the penalty of Rs.20,44,855/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has committed a clear default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with explanation (1) to that section

Shri Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -6(4), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI. RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

whereby a penalty of INR.1,13,84,395/- was levied on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of INR.3,38,21,732/-. 5. The Assessee challenged the above penalty order in appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia, raising ... whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sought to be levied for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, in the Assessment Order, while initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has stated that ‘Issued notice under Section

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Thereafter, impugned penalty order was passed on 15.03.2022 levying penalty of ₹2,97,86,762/- under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) who deleted the penalty so levied. Against this, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Bombay ... possible, then on such issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by charging the assessee with the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5.2. For giving the above finding, we draw force from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case