“levy of penalty”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korpus Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Fort Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle -44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 wherein their Lordships has 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 Court upheld ... that the penalty notice dated 22.03.2013 & 08.07.2013 did not explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and therefore it is held to be bad in law. 4 For doing that

M/S Shreenidhi Stock & Broking, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2621/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2007-08) M/S. Shreenidhi Stock & Broking, A-4, Shantinagar Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd., Opp.Nilgiri Hospital, S.V.Road, Malad West, Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aakfs-0438-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-2, Mumbai, Room No.529, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai ( In Short ‘The Cit(A) ’) Dated 21/02/2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Notice Of Hearing Of Appeal Was Repeatedly Sent To The Assessee On The Address Mentioned In Form No.36. The Notices Sent Through Rpad Were Received Back From Postal Authorities Unserved With Remarks “Unclaimed”.

taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld.Departmental Representative and material available on record. 3. The assessee in appeal has assailed levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘ the Act’ ]. The penalty u/s. 271E of the Act has been levied as the assessee

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17 ... imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. Hence, the penalty of Rs.17,83,900/- is deleted. Thus, grounds related to levy of penalty for A.Y. 2007-08 are allowed. 8. Since substantive ground related to levy of penalty is allowed in favour of the Appellant, other supportive

Dy.CIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17 ... imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. Hence, the penalty of Rs.17,83,900/- is deleted. Thus, grounds related to levy of penalty for A.Y. 2007-08 are allowed. 8. Since substantive ground related to levy of penalty is allowed in favour of the Appellant, other supportive

DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17 ... imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. Hence, the penalty of Rs.17,83,900/- is deleted. Thus, grounds related to levy of penalty for A.Y. 2007-08 are allowed. 8. Since substantive ground related to levy of penalty is allowed in favour of the Appellant, other supportive

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

this regard is that the assessee has not wilfully underreported any income, which was taxable, and hence, there was no case for levy of penalty. 6.2.3 The assessee further claimed that all the necessary facts in this regard have been disclosed in the return of income and therefore there could ... order, the Id. AO did not make out any case how the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income so as to warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He also did not make any mention of how the submissions of the assessee for penalty

M/S Resources Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Acti-Central Circle-11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

under the head other sources and Foreign Exchange loss of Rs.3,40,001/- under the head business income. Since the legality of the levy of penalty by AO has been 2 A.Y. 2011-12 Resource Realty Pvt. Ltd. challenged, we have carefully gone through the penalty order passed ... being proposed to be levied against the assessee. It should be borne in mind that the assessee can be proceeded against for levy of penalty for either of the two faults i.e. (i) “furnishing of inaccurate particulars or (ii) concealment of particulars of income.” However, in this case as noted

Magestic Premises Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4974/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magestic Premises Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Ashar It Park 6Th Floor, Vs. Stone, Near Gaganan Wagle Industrial Estate Maharaj Temple Ram (W), Thane-400604. Maruti Road, Thane, West, Thane-400601. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm5625L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T Varkey Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dated 29.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Issuing Valid Notice (Without Specifying The Fault/Charge). 3. At The Outset, We Note That There Is Delay Of More Than 1177 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Wherein The Assessee’S Director Has Sworn Before The Notary Public & Stated That Even Though The Impugned Order Was Passed U/S 153A Of The Act, It Was Handed Over To Him On 10.03.2016 & He In-Turn Handed Over The Same To One Of His Office Staff (Shri

that fact that delay of filing the appeal was not deliberate, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the outset ... Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 wherein their Lordships has 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 Court upheld

Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cent. Cir-4(1), 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.2110/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Unique Estates Dev. Co. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1906, 19Th Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor, Air India Bldg, Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, On Issue Of Advancing Of Interest Free Loans Of Rs.4,68,220/- & So Called Bogus Purchases Of Rs.5,84,076/-.” 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.12,39,12,768/-. The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 18.03.2014 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income (Normal Computation) At Rs.21,59,51,554/-

penalty notice dated 18.03.2014 there was no specific mention about the fault/charge which the AO proposed to proceed against the assessee for levy of penalty. However, the AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.03.2017 of Rs.3,01,56,969/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action ... specifically 5 A.Y. 2011-12 Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd. stated the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And even though the assessee asked the AO to specify the fault, the AO did not head to it and went ahead to levy

Roshan Sequeira, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.343/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shri Roshan Sequeira बिधम/ Dcit-24(3) Iqn Data Solutions Pvt. Piramal Chambers, Vs. Ltd., 347, Laxmi Plaza Indl. Mumbai-400012. Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asbps3025N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai Dated (Not Specified) For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Discernable From Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.18,00,000/-. 3. At The Outset, We Note That A Notice Has Been Issued By The Ao Dated 04.03.2014 Proposing Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee Is Bad In Law. From A Perusal Of The Penalty Notice Dated 04.03.2014, We Note That The Ao Has Not Specified The Fault/Charge For Which Assessee Has Been Put To Notice For Levy Of Penalty. Meaning, The Show Cause Notice Does Not Specify For What

tune of Rs.18,00,000/-. 3. At the outset, we note that a notice has been issued by the AO dated 04.03.2014 proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which according to assessee is bad in law. From a perusal of the penalty notice dated ... note that the AO has not specified the fault/charge for which assessee has been put to notice for levy of penalty. Meaning, the show cause notice does not specify for what 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Roshan Sequeira fault/charge the penalty has been proposed against the assessee i.e. have “concealment

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

oversight of the LAO and is subject to rectification u/s 154 of the Act. M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. c. Non-levy of Penalty us 27IAA for failure to report the specified domestic transaction u/s 92D(1) and section 27IBA for its failure to furnish the audit report ... same are subjective and are at the judicial discretion of the assessing officer. Considering that the assessment order has no role in the levy of penalty other than the process of initiating the penalty proceedings, it is humbly prayed before Your Honour that the levy or non-levy of penalty

Navin Agrwal, Thane vs. Circle 35(2) /AO Nafc, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2412/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Navin Agarwal बिधम/ Circle-35(2)/Ao Nfac Villa No.18, Palava Golf Delhi-110001. Vs. Links, Kalyan Shil Road Dombivali (E), Thane- 421204. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aekpa7396F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Saboo Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 16.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 17.03.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.98,76,030/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass & The Ao Issued Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. According To The Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 29.11.2018 Was Issued & Duly

should not be levied. Pursuant to the notice, the AO acknowledges that the assessee filed its submissions pleading for non-levy of penalty. However, according to the AO, the response was not acceptable. Therefore, the AO was of the opinion that it was a fit case to levy penalty

Nna Cre Properties LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1499/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Nna Cre Properties Llp बिधम/ Acit-20(2) B-4101, B-Wing, One Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Avighna Park, Mahadeo Piramal Chambers, Palav Marg, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfn0759M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Issuing Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Without Application Of Mind, As The Same Is Issued Without Mentioning That Whether It Is Levied For Concealment Of The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. It Is Note Know To Appellate As To Under Which Ground The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied. Hon. Cit(A) Has Also Erred In Not Considering The Same. 2. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,29,503/- On Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.4,19,102/-

Properties LLP DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 wherein their Lordships has held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded against would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble Court upheld

Vinati Saraf Mutreja, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amrjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1363/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Vinati Saraf Mutreja बिधम/ Acit-26(3) 302, 3Rd Floor, Vinayak 501, 5Th Floor, Vs. Heights, Nargis Dutt Road, Pratyakshkar Building, Bandra (W), Mumbai- Bkc, Bandra (E), 400050. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Artps7699M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Siddharth Kothari Revenue By: Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Dated 20.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,75,938/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee, Was Based On A Defective Notice & So It Was Bad In Law. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Is That The Assessee Had Paid Donation Of Rs.12,50,000/- To M/S. Human Genetics & Population (Hgp) U/S 35(1)(Ii) Of The Act & After Making Donation, The Assessee Claimed Weighted Deduction Of Rs.21,87,500/-. Later, The Ao Received Information From Ddit(Inv.), Unit Kolkata About Beneficiaries Of Bogus Donation To M/S. Hgp & As Per The Information, The Assessee

income. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee was not aware as to what fault/charge for which assessee is being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And since there was no specific fault/charge expressly stated in the notice, the impugned notice issued by the AO dated 30.11.2016 (P.B. page ... means the AO in the show cause notice has not specified as to for what fault/charge, the assessee is being proceeded against for levy of penalty. In other words, 4 A.Y. 2014-15 Vinati Sarat Mutreja the AO has not striken down one of the fault/charge which is discernable from

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. Each of the issue in respect of which levy of penalty has been upheld by the learned CIT(A) are dealt, hereunder, in detail. 5. The issue arising in grounds No. 2 to 6, raised ... assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to levy of penalty on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 6. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is 50:50 joint venture between Systems Integrated Telemarketing, Netherlands and the TATA group. During