“levy of penalty”

Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Panvel -Circle Panvel, Panvel

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd The Dcit, Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Panvel, Circle Panvel Vs. Seva Uran, Mumbai-400 707 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccg1899E Assessee By : Shri Manish Kanth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022

wherein penalty of Rs. 2,81,54,000/- was levied. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal;- “Ground I: Levy of penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act: Rs. 2, 81, 51,400/- 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 2, Thane ['CIT(A"] has erred ... inaccurate particulars of income with respect to the FDR interest income of ₹8,67,66,538/- which is not derived from undertaking, he levied the penalty of Rs. 2,81,51,400/-, against this assessee is in appeal before us. 08. We have heard the rival parties and considered

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The solitary ground involved in these appeals is pertaining to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the issue is ITAs 289 to 295/Mum/2016 Atul A Sanghvi common ... assessee contended that the additional ground of appeal has been filed stating that the Ld.Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The solitary ground involved in these appeals is pertaining to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the issue is ITAs 289 to 295/Mum/2016 Atul A Sanghvi common ... assessee contended that the additional ground of appeal has been filed stating that the Ld.Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The solitary ground involved in these appeals is pertaining to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the issue is ITAs 289 to 295/Mum/2016 Atul A Sanghvi common ... assessee contended that the additional ground of appeal has been filed stating that the Ld.Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The solitary ground involved in these appeals is pertaining to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the issue is ITAs 289 to 295/Mum/2016 Atul A Sanghvi common ... assessee contended that the additional ground of appeal has been filed stating that the Ld.Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The solitary ground involved in these appeals is pertaining to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the issue is ITAs 289 to 295/Mum/2016 Atul A Sanghvi common ... assessee contended that the additional ground of appeal has been filed stating that the Ld.Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The solitary ground involved in these appeals is pertaining to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the issue is ITAs 289 to 295/Mum/2016 Atul A Sanghvi common ... assessee contended that the additional ground of appeal has been filed stating that the Ld.Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The solitary ground involved in these appeals is pertaining to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the issue is ITAs 289 to 295/Mum/2016 Atul A Sanghvi common ... assessee contended that the additional ground of appeal has been filed stating that the Ld.Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income

M/S Teej Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Ward 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 643/मुं/2022("न.व. 2012-13) M/S. Teej Impex Pvt.Ltd. 4 Anna Bhuvan 3Rd Floor, 87C Devji Ratansi Marg, Dana Bunder, Mumbai 400 009 Pan: Aabct-9976-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 8(3)(1) Mumbai. Mumbai. Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Dr. P.Daniel ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A) Dated 30/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13,In Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

aside both these additions and restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for re- examination. Since, the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded the penalty proceedings arising therefrom does not survive. Consequently, the penalty is quashed. 3 5. In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

M/S. Rolex Lanolin Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 271 & 272/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Cit(A), Mumbai M/S Rolex Lanolin Products Ltd. बिधम/ 14, Old Tejpal Ind. Estate, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacr3499P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Chovatia Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 06.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2

same were heard together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 3. In AY 2009-10, assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 29,090/-, and in AY 2010-11, assessee is aggrieved Rs. 78,072/- on account of bogus purchases. 4. Here in these cases

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

explanations and is of the opinion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied the penalty and passed order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before ... Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has cooperated in submitting the information before the A.O. Further the notice issued for levy of penalty is invalid and defective and supported the submissions with the judicial decisions and paper book and prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. Contra

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

explanations and is of the opinion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied the penalty and passed order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before ... Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has cooperated in submitting the information before the A.O. Further the notice issued for levy of penalty is invalid and defective and supported the submissions with the judicial decisions and paper book and prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. Contra

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

explanations and is of the opinion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied the penalty and passed order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before ... Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has cooperated in submitting the information before the A.O. Further the notice issued for levy of penalty is invalid and defective and supported the submissions with the judicial decisions and paper book and prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. Contra

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

explanations and is of the opinion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied the penalty and passed order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before ... Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has cooperated in submitting the information before the A.O. Further the notice issued for levy of penalty is invalid and defective and supported the submissions with the judicial decisions and paper book and prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. Contra

DCIT- 19(1), Mumbai vs. Bhansali & Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

appellant's appeal.” 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative appearing before us supported the levy of penalty under Section 271G of the Act and relied upon the order passed by the TPO in this regard. The Ld. Authorised Representative ... benchmarked the same using TNMM method in its Transfer Pricing Study which has been accepted by Ld. TPO. The only basis of levying impugned penalty against the assessee is the fact that the assessee did not furnish segmental profitability under the two segments owing to inherent nature of assessee

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. The Thane District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2512/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -3, Thane, Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Aashar It Park, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16Z, Thane (W)- 400 604. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Thane District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. 01, Chhatrapati Shivaji Path, Post Box No.19, Thane (W)- 400 601. Pan: Aaaat-0739-N ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Patil सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 आदेश/ Order

authorities below and the notice dated 24/03/2014 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act examined. In appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) has deleted penalty by placing reliance on the order of Tribunasl in assessee

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

next question is whether penalty is leviable for breach of Section 269SS/269T of the Act. In the present cases, the Additional CIT has levied the penalty on both counts i.e. for breach of Section 269SS by levying penalty u/s 271D and for breach of Section 269T by levying penalty ... assessment proceedings that the result of such proceedings in the course of which the penalty proceedings were initiated does not affect the levy of penalty. On such penalty proceedings, independent of C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. the assessment proceedings, clause (c) has been made applicable

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

next question is whether penalty is leviable for breach of Section 269SS/269T of the Act. In the present cases, the Additional CIT has levied the penalty on both counts i.e. for breach of Section 269SS by levying penalty u/s 271D and for breach of Section 269T by levying penalty ... assessment proceedings that the result of such proceedings in the course of which the penalty proceedings were initiated does not affect the levy of penalty. On such penalty proceedings, independent of C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. the assessment proceedings, clause (c) has been made applicable