“furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”

Kismet Exports & Investments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

I.T.Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5.1 He further argued that the assessee company has accumulated profit from earlier year i.e. F.Y. 2006-07 as on 31.03.2007 an amount of Rs.52

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

International Freight Services Pvt Ltd. (SC)has held that the assessee is liable to pay penalty u/s.271(l) (c) if he has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his Income Tax Return. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that everything would depend upon the return filed because that ... furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing the particulars of income are two different things. The words "Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" referred to the particulars which were furnished by an assessee of his income and the requirement of concealment of his income is that

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

other sources under section 56(vii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 9. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO on the same reasoning

De Dietrich Process Systems India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2021 & 2022/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit-19(3)(1), Mumbai De Dietrich Process Systems Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 R. No. 548/549, Road No. 16, Vs. Ttc Indl. Area, Midc Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccd8576D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-16, Mumbai In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

this addition, penalty has been levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the penalties after following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

other sources under section 56(vii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 9. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO on the same reasoning

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the assessee Cross Objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Savita Oil Of Income Tax-Cc-8(4) Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 66-67, 658, Aayakarbhavan, Narimanbhawan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai- 400 021 Pan No.Aaacs7934A Appellant Respondent

Assessing officer is defective, as it does not mention whether the penalty is levied for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR has filed the submissions and demonstrated the copy of Notice. Whereas, the Ld.DR contentions are that the CIT(A) has erred

Apco Yarn (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

assessee in the assessment order goes to prove that AO has not applied his mind to work out if the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed its income so as to initiate the penal 4 M/s. Apco Yarn (India) Pvt. Ltd. provisions. AO is required to record ... valid satisfaction if the assessee has concealed its income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Moreover, in the instant case undisputedly entire addition has been made in this case on adhoc basis by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) being the 20% disallowance of sundry creditors

Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1), Mumbai vs. Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1666/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan बिधम/ Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, B-106 Shiv Sambhav Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), Chsl, Veer Savarkar 421301. Road, Dombivli (E), Thane-421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeeps2956R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Facts Of The Case Is That The Ao In The Quantum Assessment Dated 30.12.2014 Had Added Rs.1,46,635/- Being 100% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A)-1 By Order Dated 25.06.2018 Reduced The Same To The Extent Of 25% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. Resultantly, The Addition Was Restricted To Rs.36,659/-. On Further Appeal By Revenue, The Tribunal Upheld The Action Of The Cit(A) (Ita. No 5079 & 5080/Mum/2018) & Thus The Revenue Appeal Was Dismissed.

trite that the additions made on estimated basis cannot be subjected to penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thus, various Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals have consistently held the same view while deleting the penalty imposed under section

ACIT Cent Cir 2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amish A Modi, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. From the above it is apparent that no incriminating material was found with regard to addition made. Furthermore, from where addition

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. From the above it is apparent that no incriminating material was found with regard to addition made. Furthermore, from where addition

Asstt. CIT, Central Cir-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amish A Modi, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. From the above it is apparent that no incriminating material was found with regard to addition made. Furthermore, from where addition

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. Dy Cti-CC-2(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. From the above it is apparent that no incriminating material was found with regard to addition made. Furthermore, from where addition

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. Dy Cti-CC-2(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. From the above it is apparent that no incriminating material was found with regard to addition made. Furthermore, from where addition

Steller Films Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed Pronounced in the open court today on the 15th of 21

total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and justified ... total income of the assessee. Penalty Proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 16. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal but without any success. Learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the basis of following reasons

J V Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

under the head computes at Rs.25,00,000/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for year under reference.” 6. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 15/03/2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

filed u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore it is prove that the assessee has concealed particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is evident that the assessee has conceal income to evade payment of taxes which attract penalty proceeding

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

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

Bench: Us.

proposing to initiate penalty proceedings. However, in the Assessment Order, Assessing Officer records that the penalty proceedings are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. An identical situation has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in Meherjee Cassinath Holdings v. ACIT in ITA.No. 2555/Mum/2012 dated 28.04.2017 as to whether ... penalty can be levied on the 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

Rare Enterprises, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai 4, Mumbai

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

admission) and the same is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. We note that the AO had initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, it is noted from perusal of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act that AO had disallowed Rs.3

DCIT Cent -Cir.1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-1(2), 511, Dalamal Towers, 211, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishta Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mumbai-400 021 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs1269E Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Nihar Mehta & Jayesh B. Kapani, Cas’ Revenue By : Dr. Pallavi Darade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022

Nista Realtors P Ltd.; A.Y. 18-19 11.5 Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 9.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that this project was auctioned by the Panjab National Bank on the basis

Lotus Labs P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Banglore (Present Incharge Mumbai)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

penal provisions, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the income-tax: Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. Learned CIT(A) also confirmed