“penalty u/s 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,277 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (9 SCC 589), cited in 200 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

9 SCC 589 · 2009 · Supreme Court

200

citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court

146

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Prasanna Dugar v. CIT

70 Taxmann.com 175 · 2016 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied even if the assessee voluntarily discloses income after detection by the department or subsequent to a search, especially when the explanation provided is not bona fide or cannot be substantiated.

Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

135 Taxmann.com 244 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it shows non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific grounds for levying the penalty.

CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills

256 ITR 447 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions to income are made on the basis of estimation, rather than on concrete evidence of concealment. Deletion of such a penalty is upheld.

ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF

348 ITR 561 · 2012 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Section 271AAA penalty deletion can be based on the Apex Court's decision in ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561, particularly when there was no specific question put to the assessee about the manner of earning undisclosed income.

CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd.

41 Taxmann.com 280 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the income addition is made on an estimated basis without clinching material suggesting concealment or inaccurate particulars.

New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

49 Taxmann.com 573 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The charge of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income may overlap. A taxpayer's conduct can be considered bonafide even if their submissions were rejected in the quantum appeal.

Judgments citing penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

ITO 8 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Sun Colorants Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6469/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without having regard to the fact that the penalty was imposed in respect of the purchases which were conclusively proved to be bogus

Nandivardhan Construction Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

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

ITA 4973/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4973/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ Nandivardhan Construction Dcit, Central Circle-2 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Wagle Industrial Estate Stone, Near Gajanan (West), Thane-400604. Maharaj Temple Ram Maruti Road, Thane-West, Thane- 400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1260G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [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. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Recording Any Satisfaction Is Bad In Law & The Consequential Penalty Order

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee to be made aware as to which of the two is being put against him for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, so that the assessee can defend accordingly. It is in this background that one has to appreciate the preliminary plea ... canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue

M/S. Rinira Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD.11(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1872/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Rinira Technologies Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 11(1)(2) Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor 110, Shiv Ashish, 66-S.V. Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai - 40058 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcr7702C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh

Section 10BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee has preferred an appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred In levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the validity of penalty order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.271(1 ... specifying the limb under which he intends to initiate penalty proceedings. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the validity of penalty order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c

Proma Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1787/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Proma Industries Limited, Income Tax Officer-10(3)(4), 1803, Lodha Supremes, Saki Vihar Room No. 554, 5Th Floor, Road, Opp. Mtnl Exchange, Powai, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacp 6230 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. B.K. Bagchi, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

dated 11.03.2020 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] in relation with penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘the Act’) levied by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced ... Proma Industries Ltd. 2 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,89,569/- made by the Assessing Officer. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue

Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Kalyan

ITA 1697/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1697/मुं/2018("न.व.2010-11) Shri Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, C/O. Suresh N. Otwani, 305, 3Rd Floor, Adamji Building, 413, Katha Bazar, Mumbai- 400 009 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Abfpr-8942-L बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)- 421 301. : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax(Appeals)-1,Thane [in short 'the CIT(A)’] dated 22/12/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2 2. This appeal of the assessee is pending for adjudication since 2019. Except ... disclosed by the assessee in the return of income, however, there is no satisfaction recorded in the assessment order for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the aforesaid addition. The only reference to the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c

DCIT Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1989/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1989/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) आअसं. 1988/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-1,Thane, Room No.22, B- Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Thane (W) – 400 604. बनाम/ Vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Shop No.12, Basement, Tip Top Plaza, Lbs Marg, Thane (W) -400 602. Pan.Aagfj-5549-K : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rameshwar MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Since, identical issue is involved in both these appeals and identical grounds are raised assailing the findings of CIT(A) in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’), these appeals are taken up together for adjudication ... account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer made estimated addition @20% of the alleged bogus purchases. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 20/08/2015 levying penalty of Rs.14,734/- in Assessment Year 2010-11. Aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee

DCIT, Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J. Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1988/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rameshwar MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Clsa Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee for both the A

ITA 592/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accoutant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Paras Savla, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appeals)-56, Mumbai [in short the ld. CIT(A)]for A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14, respectively, in relation to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’) ITA Nos.592 & 593/Mum/2019, 2 C.Os.93 &94/Mum/2021 A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 DCIT (IT)-2(1 ... facts in respect of A.Y. 2013-14 are also similar. In view of no appeal filed the A.O levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in AY 2012-13 by way of order dated 27.03.2017 and for A.Y. 2013-14 by way of order dated 31.08.20127. On further

Kavita Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26(2), Mumbai

ITA 5828/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Dalal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

offered by him is not bonafide and is incorrect and false on facts. Therefore, the assessee is held liable for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income of Rs.9,39,442/- ……“ (Emphasis supplied) 10. In view

Sanjay Hirachand Chokad, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1801/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 292B

disclosed bank accounts. 3. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and charging interest u/s 234A,B & C. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income

The United Western Bank Ltd. (Through Successors Idbi Bank Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 289/PUN/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding order of the Assessing officer levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing officer u/s 271 (1)(c

The United Western Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1339/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

The United Western Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1738/PUN/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Rrb Energy Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the RevenueDepartment stands dismissed

ITA 7323/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Addl. Cit, Vs. Rrb Energy Ltd, Special Range-7, Ga, 1/B-1, Extension, New Delhi Mohan Coop. Ind Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacv0109N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriVipulKashyap, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri. S. Krishanan, Ld. Adv

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35Section 40

inadmissible deduction under the provisions of the Act andacted in collusion and predetermined planned manner to evade tax. Ultimately the AOimposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,24,31,688/- being 100% of taxliability on the disallowance

Shri Babaram R. Kadam, Mumbai vs. ITO -1(1), Thane

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

ITA 845/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Babaram .R. Vs. Ito – 1(1) Kadam, Ashar It Park, 2701,A- Wing, Acura Road No. 16Z, Wagle Rustomjee Urbania, Estate, Thane West - Majaswada, Balkum, 400064. Thane(West) – 400 606 Maharashtra Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Duzpk3264C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.C.T Mathews. Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The 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:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.C.T Mathews. Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

record and none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The sole crux of the disputed issue is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on difference in the market value as per stamp valuation authority and the registered agreement of sale

Triumph International Finance India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 195/MUM/2021[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.195 To 197/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03)

For Appellant: Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assets pertaining to pharmaceutical business. Therefore, the assessing officer issued show cause letter dated 19.02.2019 to the assessee as to why not penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be levied in respect of following disallowance addition: Sr. No. Description Amount (Rs.) 1. Disallowed depreciation 92,369 2. Disallowed

Memon Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5990/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5990/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Memon Co-Op Bank Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-1(3)(2) C/O Memon Co-Op Bank Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ltd, Patel & Sony Arcade, Mumbai-400020. 234 Bellasis Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat0066G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Toprani Revenue By: Ajay Chandra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.70,61,337/- U/S 271(1)(C). B. The Learned C.1.T. (A) Failed To Appreciate That:

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj TopraniFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5738/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5738/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit बिधम/ Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. 5Th Floor, Room No.506, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. L-61, Midc Industrial Area, Taloja, Raigad, Maharashtra- Road, Mumbai-400020. 410208. & Cross Objection No.41/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5738/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-6(3)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No.506, Ltd. Vs. L-61, Midc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Taloja, Raigad, Maharashtra- Road, Mumbai-400020. 410208. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj5175G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 21.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.41/Mum/2021 A.Y.2010-11 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

considered to be legally tenable. Therefore, the ground of appeal is dismissed. 7 In Ground No. 7 the assessee contested initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). AO while passing the order has only initiated penalty. There cannot be a grievance against initiation of penalty and the ground of appeal

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd (Successor to M/S Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms indicated above

ITA 3031/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3031/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Spirit Infrapower & Dcit-8(2)(2) R. No. 625, 6Th Floor, Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To M/S Premier Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Finance & Trading Co. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बिधम/ Ltd.) Vs. 18Th Floor, A-Wint, Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aalcs5905J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. Ar : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Dated 04.12.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,11,11,828/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act and consequential initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal by deleting the 3 I.T.A

Sankalp Retail Value Stores Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2426/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2426/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sankalp Retail Value Stores बिधम/ Acit-13(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Vs. 401, Rajiv Premji Apts., S.V. 400020. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapc5897R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274