“levy of penalty”

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahavir Build Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. M/S. Mahavir Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 216, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aafcm0474Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Department By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

brevity, it is not reproduced below. After considering the detailed submissions, Ld. ACIT rejected the submissions made by the assessee and he levied the penalty u/s. 271E of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee ... counsel, we observed that the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s group company i.e. Lodha Builder Pvt. Ltd., held on the similar issue of levy of penalty as under: - “32. From above extracts from the judgment of jurisdictional High Court, it is clear that the journal entries

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Ommissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

respectively, (A.Y. 2013-14 TO 2015-16 & 2017-18 TO 2018-19) confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’]. 2. These appeals germinate from same set of facts and identical grounds have been raised by the assessee ... each of the assessment years. The CIT(A) after examining the explanation furnished by the assessee has rightly upheld the levy of penalty. 5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

respectively, (A.Y. 2013-14 TO 2015-16 & 2017-18 TO 2018-19) confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’]. 2. These appeals germinate from same set of facts and identical grounds have been raised by the assessee ... each of the assessment years. The CIT(A) after examining the explanation furnished by the assessee has rightly upheld the levy of penalty. 5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-50, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

respectively, (A.Y. 2013-14 TO 2015-16 & 2017-18 TO 2018-19) confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’]. 2. These appeals germinate from same set of facts and identical grounds have been raised by the assessee ... each of the assessment years. The CIT(A) after examining the explanation furnished by the assessee has rightly upheld the levy of penalty. 5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 50, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

respectively, (A.Y. 2013-14 TO 2015-16 & 2017-18 TO 2018-19) confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’]. 2. These appeals germinate from same set of facts and identical grounds have been raised by the assessee ... each of the assessment years. The CIT(A) after examining the explanation furnished by the assessee has rightly upheld the levy of penalty. 5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have

Rohit Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)50, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2205 To 2209/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14 से 2015-16 एवं 2017- 18 से 2018-19 )

respectively, (A.Y. 2013-14 TO 2015-16 & 2017-18 TO 2018-19) confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’]. 2. These appeals germinate from same set of facts and identical grounds have been raised by the assessee ... each of the assessment years. The CIT(A) after examining the explanation furnished by the assessee has rightly upheld the levy of penalty. 5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Dilip B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14

defeat the very purpose of Search/Survey operations as they fail to bring the undisclosed income to tax in a sustainable manner leave alone levy of penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed

Shell Informaation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

interest u/s.234B of the Act which would be consequential in nature. 8. The ground No.9 raised by the assessee is with regard to levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act which would be premature for adjudication at this stage, hence, dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Shellinformation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

interest u/s.234B of the Act which would be consequential in nature. 8. The ground No.9 raised by the assessee is with regard to levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act which would be premature for adjudication at this stage, hence, dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, West Bengal vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 2090/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1969/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2010-11) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 Pan: Aaace-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(4), 9Thfloor, Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road,Mumbai- 400 020 ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sukanya Jayaram ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Heliwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16/06/2022 Common For The Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16/06/2022 common for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11, confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2 ITA NO.1969/MUM/2022(A.Y.2010-11) 2. Shri Yogesh Thar appearing ... levied has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 15/11/2022(supra) . Once substratum for levy of penalty has eroded, the penalty proceedings does not survive. In the light of undisputed facts, the impugned order confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-1(40, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 2090/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1969/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2010-11) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 Pan: Aaace-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(4), 9Thfloor, Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road,Mumbai- 400 020 ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sukanya Jayaram ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Heliwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16/06/2022 Common For The Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16/06/2022 common for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11, confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2 ITA NO.1969/MUM/2022(A.Y.2010-11) 2. Shri Yogesh Thar appearing ... levied has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 15/11/2022(supra) . Once substratum for levy of penalty has eroded, the penalty proceedings does not survive. In the light of undisputed facts, the impugned order confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year

Nilofar Jalal Lakhan, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assellment Centre 2 (1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilofar Jalal Lakhan, National Faceless Assessment Crescent Bay, Tower 6, Flat No. Centre Dcit 2(1), Delhi. 3904, Jerbai Wadia Road, Vs. Bhoiwada, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Afvpj 9774 L Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. V.C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2022

issued on 05.10.2009 and therefore, assessee on 05.10.2009 and therefore, assessee was held to be liable for levy of penalty of ₹10,000/- was held to be liable for levy of penalty of u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of the notice. According to the assessee ... Mall, L.B.S. Road, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai Mall, L.B.S. Road, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. The Ld. 400086. The Ld. CIT(A), however, as confirmed levy of penalty on the ground that CIT(A), however, as confirmed levy of penalty on the ground that CIT(A), however, as confirmed levy of penalty