← All Phrases

“levy of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 2715,057 judgments

The decision most relied on for levy of penalty is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on levy of penalty

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
511
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

CIT v. Manu Engg
122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court
505
citing judgments

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

Judgments citing levy of penalty

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1379/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

only identical issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for default in compliance with one notice issued by the ld. AO by the assessee in the facts ... u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and not u/s.144 of the Act, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act as in our considered opinion, the assessee had adduced reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1378/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

only identical issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for default in compliance with one notice issued by the ld. AO by the assessee in the facts ... u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and not u/s.144 of the Act, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act as in our considered opinion, the assessee had adduced reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1377/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

only identical issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for default in compliance with one notice issued by the ld. AO by the assessee in the facts ... u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and not u/s.144 of the Act, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act as in our considered opinion, the assessee had adduced reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1376/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

only identical issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for default in compliance with one notice issued by the ld. AO by the assessee in the facts ... u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and not u/s.144 of the Act, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act as in our considered opinion, the assessee had adduced reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1375/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

only identical issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for default in compliance with one notice issued by the ld. AO by the assessee in the facts ... u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and not u/s.144 of the Act, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act as in our considered opinion, the assessee had adduced reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B

Mr. Real Team System Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1389/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1389/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito 15(3)(1) M/S Real Team Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 1101, Bldg. No. 6, Road, Churchgate, Seawood Estates, Nri Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 706 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr0073Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 17.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 17.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld
Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.A. No. 1389/Mum/2019 M/s Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. 2. Assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 9,50,000/- in respect of disallowance of Rs. 27,08,548/- on account of excess claim of depreciation. 3. The facts in brief are that assessee is engaged

Sameer Noorullah Khan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Sameer Noorullah Khan Cit (A)-32 K Raheja Prime Kautilya Bhavan, Office No.9, 9 Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Behind Times Square Bldg, Room No.945, Bkc, Vs. Sag Baug Road, Marol Naka, Bandra (E) Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 50 Mumbai-400 059 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alrpk 5260 A Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 138Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 68

assessee has challenged it per solitary ground of appeal that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹18 lacs under Section 271D of the Act. 03. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual engaged in tours and travels business ... accepted and as assessee’s case does not fall within the ‘reasonable clause’ as per Provision of Section 273B of the Act, he levied the penalty of ₹18 lacs as per order dated 7th December, 2018. 07. Assessee preferred the appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and reiterated

Sri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, The Deputy Srinagar Colony, Commissioner Of Near Arunodhaya Income Tax, Hospital, Central Circle – 1[3], Siriguppa Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bellary. Pan: Afbpr9736C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 19/01/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As Levying Penalty U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Penalty Passed U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Rws 271 Of The Act Is Not Discernable Whether The Penalty Proceedings Are Initiated For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Concealment Of Income Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate
Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

circumstances of the appellant's case. Page 2 of 8 3. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below are not justified in levying a penalty of Rs. 40,22,871/- u/s 271 [1] [c] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case ... authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty in respect of the seizure of cash was made by CBI from the possession of the appellant and therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271

Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1223/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

adjustment made by the TPO/ALP determined by the TO or acceptance of Transfer Pricing Study Report as one of the basis for levy of Penalty under this Section. Section 271G has to be seen independently of the final adjustment made by the TPO in the ALP of the transactions with ... then the penalty provisions us. 271(1) (c) would have been separately considered by the Assessing Officer, which is mutually exclusive from the levy of Penalty under Section 271G of the Act in this case. Both these penalty provisions are mutually exclusive and not overlapping. The fact that making

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

conducted by department, assessee might not have agreed to addition and, hence, it could not be said addition was made voluntarily and he levied concealment penalty – Assessee was given an opportunity to explain and he nowhere rebutted evidences, which were recovered during course of survey and materials, which were recovered ... mere fact that concealment of income was invented by Assessing Officer from details that are furnished by assessee does not absolve assessee from levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) [In favour of revenue] If the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is an act committed

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1240/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1240/मुं/2022 ("न. व .2007-08) Dcit, Central Circle 1(2),Mumbai Room No. 906, 9Th Floor, Annexe Building, Pratishtha Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, 15A, J Mehta Road, Next To Khatau, Condominium, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai – 400 006. Pan: Aadpp-0814-G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Mishra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Salil MishraFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 271(1)(c)

Tribunal has deleted the additions on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. Once the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded the penalty does not survive. We find no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the same is upheld and appeal

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1207/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Tribunal in assessee’s own case while adjudicating assessee’s appeals for assessment year 2015-16 to 2019-20 against the order confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act deleted the penalty by observing as under: “ 4. A perusal of the submissions which was rendered ... staff or their family members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1206/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Tribunal in assessee’s own case while adjudicating assessee’s appeals for assessment year 2015-16 to 2019-20 against the order confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act deleted the penalty by observing as under: “ 4. A perusal of the submissions which was rendered ... staff or their family members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country

Deepak Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1535/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdeepak Jain Vs. Ito – 33(1)(4) 202, Emp 54, Evershine (Formerly Assessed By Millanium Paradize, Ito 25(3)(2),R No. Thakur Vill, Kandivali (E) 708, 7Th Floor, C- Mumbai – 400101 12,Pratyakshakar Bhavan Bkc,Bandra- Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aacpj1817E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 45, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Mahita Nair.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

detail explanations on 5-03-2013 referred at para3 of the penalty order. But the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations and levied a penalty of Rs.2,57,476/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28-03-2013. Deepak Jain, Mumbai. 5. Aggrieved ... considered the grounds of appeal and the submissions of the assessee but the confirmed the action of the A.O in levy of penalty and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal with the Hon’ble Tribunal. At the time of hearing

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax(A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

points/questionnaire asked in notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the assessing officer has left with no other option but to levy the penalty in this case. As the assessee has not bothered to respond the notice(s) issued in this case therefore, the undersigned assessing officer ... satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and hereby levy a penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) for failing in complying with notice(s) issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. issue. Demand notice and Challan

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1193/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

points/questionnaire asked in notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the assessing officer has left with no other option but to levy the penalty in this case. As the assessee has not bothered to respond the notice(s) issued in this case therefore, the undersigned assessing officer ... satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and hereby levy a penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) for failing in complying with notice(s) issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. issue. Demand notice and Challan

Luxury Lifestyle Trading India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC.-Cell -TDS, Mumbai

ITA 1991/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh B. AdvaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 1Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

before 01.06.2015. Accordingly, we consider it appropriate and in the interest of justice to allow the appeal and delete the levy of penalty levied under Section 234E of the Act in respect Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 of these 7 appeals, being ITA No. 1991 to 1997/Mum/2021. As regards

M/S. Spontteneous Chem Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400003 vs. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 271(1)(c)

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition made on account of bogus purchases on an estimated basis. 3. None appeared on behalf ... penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the ld. AO on the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A). This levy of penalty also was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. From the above narration of facts, it could be seen that ultimately penalty has been

Apurva Jagdish Nanvati, Mumbai vs. JCIT-RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2421/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleapurva Jagdish Nanavati V. Jcit – Range – 10(3) Arunodaya Bungalow, Sarojini Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaapn4583F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S.RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

initiated penalty. Assessee submits that this was not purpose of introduction of Section 269SS. In view of the above, assessee submits that the levy of penalty under Section 271D in his case is not called for.. 5. As stated above. Shri Nilesh Bharani, is believed to have retracted ... learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act while upholding the order levying the penalty u/s 271D amounting Rs.10,00,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case and totally ignoring submission made before him and dismissing the appeal on the basis that

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

company. Moreover, Section 221 of the Act inter alia provides of the Act inter alia provides of the Act inter alia for the levy of penalty and for the levy of penalty and Section 276B of the Act inter alia provides that where a person fails