“penalty u/s 271(1)(c)”

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

case I am fully convinced that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is levied”. That being so, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 28/12/2011 has made several additions

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

case I am fully convinced that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is levied”. That being so, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 28/12/2011 has made several additions

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

case I am fully convinced that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is levied”. That being so, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 28/12/2011 has made several additions

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

case I am fully convinced that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is levied”. That being so, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 28/12/2011 has made several additions

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

case I am fully convinced that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is levied”. That being so, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 28/12/2011 has made several additions

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

case I am fully convinced that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is levied”. That being so, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 28/12/2011 has made several additions

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

case I am fully convinced that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is levied”. That being so, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 28/12/2011 has made several additions

Manorma V. Rathi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhsmt. Manorma V. Rathi Vs. The Acit, Circle 21(1) C/O G.P. Mehta & Co. C-10, Vi Floor, Cas., 807, Tulsiani Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Chambers, 212, Nariman Bandra Kurla Complex, Point, Mumbai Bandra (E), 400 021 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabpr3678Q Appellant .. Respondent

cannot be refunded back under any circumstances. The only apparent purpose seems to be, is to escape the rigors of the penalty u/s 271(1)(C), by claiming the assessment to be nullity. Be that as it may, the plea of the appellant is not tenable even

Pritesh Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD, 27(2) (5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

restrict the addition to Rs.2,24,160/- being 12.5% of the purchases of Rs.17,93,277/-. Thereafter, the AO had levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by order dated 25.03.2019 and made an addition of Rs.73,972/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... income. We note that this Tribunal in such cases (wherein additions have been made on estimation basis) has held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed [(refer Chempure Vs. ITO (2010) 40 SOT 164) (Mum)], wherein a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

under section 80IB(10) would have escaped assessment (Rs 23,32,39,561) and therefore, it was a fit case for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; and even though the assessee withdrew the claim by filing the revised return and offered for taxation the profit from

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

under section 80IB(10) would have escaped assessment (Rs 23,32,39,561) and therefore, it was a fit case for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; and even though the assessee withdrew the claim by filing the revised return and offered for taxation the profit from

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the quantum appeal of the assessee partly. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued the notice dated 22.02.2019 which was served upon the assessee on 27.02.2019 wherein there was a direction ... assessee’s spouse and thus the total disallowance comes to Rs.10,21,310/-. Thus, assessee got part relief. But AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Radhika Dipan Mehta particulars of income chargeable to tax and levied

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the quantum appeal of the assessee partly. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued the notice dated 22.02.2019 which was served upon the assessee on 27.02.2019 wherein there was a direction ... assessee’s spouse and thus the total disallowance comes to Rs.10,21,310/-. Thus, assessee got part relief. But AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Radhika Dipan Mehta particulars of income chargeable to tax and levied

Jeni Ahay Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(1) (C), Vashi

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejeni Abhay Shah Vs. Ito – 27(1)(5) 902, A Wing, Bldg Vashi Rly Station No.88, R.S. Money, Navi Mumabi – Supermarket, Vrushali 400701. Apartments, Tilak Nagar, Mumbai – 400089. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Axvps3431M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S.N.Kabra.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.06.2022 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Jeni Abhay Shah, Mumbai 1. The Ld. Ao Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) On Adhoc & On Unverified Presumptive Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

raised the following grounds of appeal. Jeni Abhay Shah, Mumbai 1. The Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on adhoc and on unverified presumptive addition of alleged bogus purchases. 2. The NFAC has not given proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing ... Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O based on the assessment order under section 143 r.w.s 147 of the Act. We find

ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Linklaters 3. Meanwhile, the AO gave effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and also issued notice of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed the penalty order dated 10.03.2006, levying penalty of Rs.1,24,73,238/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal ... which was decided by this Tribunal in ITA. Nos. 7081/Mum/2005 & 7082 to 85/Mum/2005 wherein the AO’s action of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) which was confirmed by this Tribunal by holding as under: - 5 C.O. 186/Mum/2007 A.Ys

Rajendra Tubes & Fittings, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for both the assessment years, since no change in facts or law could be brought to our notice

been confirmed by this Tribunal. On the aforesaid facts discussed on the basis of estimation, we are of the opinion that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is warranted. For that we rely on the decision in A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajendra Tubes & Fitting. the case

Rajendra Tubes & Fittings, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for both the assessment years, since no change in facts or law could be brought to our notice

been confirmed by this Tribunal. On the aforesaid facts discussed on the basis of estimation, we are of the opinion that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is warranted. For that we rely on the decision in A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajendra Tubes & Fitting. the case