“levy of penalty”

Manjudevi Ranjitlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

which is consequential. Therefore, this ground needs no separate adjudication. 10. Ground no. 5 raised in assessee’s appeal pertains to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which at this stage is premature and therefore, is dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal

Kanan Knitwear, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Girish Agrawal

appreciating that a difference in opinion on the nature of the loss whether capital or revenue would not in itself result in the levy of penalty. 3. The Learned C1T{A) erred in not appreciating that the assessing officer himself was totally unsure about the \ nature of the charge whether ... learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty order i wherein the charge for levying penalty was distinct from the charge for levy of penalty in notice. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal, at any time before

Mumbai Police Wefare Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Girish Agrawal

jurisdictional High Court in the case of SudhirkumarChottubhai (supra) and City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (supra). The levy of penalty is unjustified. So, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) amount to Rs.1,08,56,103/- is quashed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Rajiv Pratap Joshi, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)-Kalyan, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that in Form No. 35, the assessee requested

Stillwater Defence Textile Technologies, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Assessing Officer. 4. Before us it was contended by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee that continuation of Penalty proceedings and levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the Assessment order, Order 29/12/2016, which 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 has since been

Fabrikant Trading (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

issued. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in merging it with the ground of appeal raised on merits related to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the addition made without adjudicating the same. The Appellant submits that the technical ground of appeal raised ... case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of levying the penalty of Rs.29,02,020/- u/s 271(1)(c) by treating the adhoc addition of Rs. 86,21,564/- on the basis of peak balance

Vinod Mohanan, Navi Mumbai vs. NFAC, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Smt. Renu Jauhrivinod Mohanan, Vs. Nfac, B/202, Plot No. 5, Anurag Income Tax Residency, Sector-9, Department, Opp Saksham Surer Mkt. Newdelhi-110001. Kamothe, Thane– 410208. Maharastra Pan/Gir No. Axgpm7296M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assesseeby Shri Suresh Gudhar & Shri Rajesh B Jage.Ar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 19.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO but has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assesse appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed ... appeal against the quantum addition and the same is pending. Whereas the CIT(A) has overlooked the facts and has confirmed the levy of penalty. Further the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) in the 4 Vinod Mohanan, Mumbai quantum appeal has deleted the addition made

First Global Stockbroking Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (1) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

remaining unpaid. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued show Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued show Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levy of penalty u/s 221 of the Act. However, same cause notice for levy of penalty u/s 221 of the Act. However, same cause notice for levy ... provisions of subsection (3) of the section "Para 4.17 : The old provisions of subsection (3) of the section provided for levy of penalty for non provided for levy of penalty for non-payment of self payment of self-assessment tax, since the rate of mandatory interest for failure