“levy of penalty”

Dhl Logistics Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

statistical purpose. 18. Ground 5 of the appeal relates to initiation of penalty under section 271AA and 270A of the Act. The levy of penalty is premature at this stage and, therefore, this ground of the appeal is infructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. 19. In the result, appeal

Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani, Mum vs. Income Tax Officer-22(3)(1), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhraju Tirathdas Vs. Income Tax Officer - Ramchandani, 603, 22(3)(1), Piramal Premodyan Co-Op Chamber, Lal Baugh Housing Society, 12Th Parel, Road, Ram Krishna Maharashtra - 400012 Mission, Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aebpr3611P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shashi Bekal Respondent By : Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Am: The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Nfac In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.4,49,922/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. Fact In Brief Is That Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act Was Finalized On 04.03.2013. During The Course Assessment A.O Noticed That Assessee Has Made Total Investment Of Rs.14,00,000/- During The Year In All Templaton India Treasury Management Account Regular Plan – Weekly Dividend Plan Scheme. The A.O Stated That During The Course Of

AMARJIT SINGH, AM: The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is directed against the NFAC in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.4,49,922/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Fact in brief is that assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act was finalized

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Rs.8,51,000/- in the return in response to notice u/s 148 has been voluntarily made and therefore it is not liable for levy of penalty "Voluntarily means out of free will ie without any compulsion. It has been held in the cases of K.L. Swamy ... detection thereof and filed return in response to notice u/s 148 offering the said amount as additional income, the assessee cannot escape levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In the instant case, the said additional income on account of brokerage for arranging loans was never disclosed in the original

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Rs.8,51,000/- in the return in response to notice u/s 148 has been voluntarily made and therefore it is not liable for levy of penalty "Voluntarily means out of free will ie without any compulsion. It has been held in the cases of K.L. Swamy ... detection thereof and filed return in response to notice u/s 148 offering the said amount as additional income, the assessee cannot escape levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In the instant case, the said additional income on account of brokerage for arranging loans was never disclosed in the original

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

while adjudicating the appeal Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai. The Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty u/s 271D i.e. for accepting of the assessee against levy of penalty u/s 271D i.e. for accepting of the assessee against levy of penalty u/s 271D

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

while adjudicating the appeal Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai. The Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty u/s 271D i.e. for accepting of the assessee against levy of penalty u/s 271D i.e. for accepting of the assessee against levy of penalty u/s 271D

Magnaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7077/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Magnaram Choudhary बिधम/ Ito-17(2)(3) Flat No. 304, Building No. Matru Mandir, Mumbai. Vs. B-2/D, Nav Maharashtra Nagar Co-Op Society, M. P. Mill Compound, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ainpc0320L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai Dated 03.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

specifying the specific fault for which the assessee being proceeded 3 A.Y. 2010-11 Magnaram Choudhary against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts. We note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High ... Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble High Court upheld

DCIT- CC- 7 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers 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. Macrotech Developers Ltd., Room No. 655, 6Th Floor (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers Ltd.,) 412, 17G, Vardhan Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Niraj Sheth Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

vague and general explanation. (vii) To give a categorical finding whether the genuineness of the transactions is not a factor to decide the levy of penalty. The transaction may be genuine, yet if the reasonable cause for the default is not proved, the assessee will be liable to penalty ... counsel, we observed that the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s group company i.e. Lodha Builder Pvt. Ltd., held on the issue of similar levy of penalty as under: - “32. From above extracts from the judgment of jurisdictional High Court, it is clear that the journal entries

Dy.CIT Circle -1, Thane vs. Shri Gangasagar Sitaram Mallah, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

08/08/2019 and hold that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.” 11. Since similar submissions have been in the present case, wherein levy of penalty of Rs. 1,54,002, is under challenge, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

Prompt Toys Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -7(3) (4), Mumbai

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

amounting to Rs. 2,85,700/- passed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty on the ground that there was neither concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As there was no representation

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

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

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

further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), before confirming the said levy of penalty, has not followed the directions of the Tribunal in their ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 order dated 12th July ... leviable and that the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the same. 3. The CIT(A) erred in enhancing the levy of penalty by ₹43,44,25,859/- under section 271D of the Act. The appellants contend that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

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

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

further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), before confirming the said levy of penalty, has not followed the directions of the Tribunal in their ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 order dated 12th July ... leviable and that the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the same. 3. The CIT(A) erred in enhancing the levy of penalty by ₹43,44,25,859/- under section 271D of the Act. The appellants contend that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

penalty proceedings as also the order be treated as invalid, illegal and bad in law. Without prejudice to above ground Ground No. II: Levy of penalty u/s. 271(l) (c): 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in partly ... satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and judicial decisions and levied a penalty of Rs.25,00000/- and passed the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.03.2013. 6 M/s Phoenix International Freight Services