“levy of penalty”

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

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

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

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

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

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

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

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

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Com of Income Tax (Appeals) -50, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

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

Shantilal Balubhai Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.580/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shantilal Balubhai Parekh बिधम/ Ito, Ward 3(4) 24, Gaurav Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Nahur Village Road, Above Canara Bank, Sarvoday Nagar, Mulund Murbad Road, Kalyan, West, Mumbai-400080. Maharashtra -421301. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akcpp9255C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Radha Halbe Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Ojha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 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 09.07.2021 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. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A), Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.83,282/-. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Ms. Radha Halbe Brought To Our Notice That The Impugned Penalty Levied By Ao Is Bad In Law For Issuing Defective Notice Before Levying The Penalty. To Buttress This Contention, She Drew Our Attention To The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated

Radha Halbe brought to our notice that the impugned penalty levied by AO is bad in law for issuing defective notice before levying the penalty. To buttress this contention, she drew our attention to the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the AO u/s 274 read with section ... stricken out the inapplicable fault/charges, the assessee was unable to know for what fault/charge the AO was proposing to levy the penalty. So according to her, the show cause notice is bad in law and therefore, the penalty levied pursuant to it is also bad in law, and therefore

Ria Cetp Co-Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ria Cetp Co-Operative बिधम/ Ito, Ward-1 Society Ltd 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Vs. Riacetp Co-Op. Ltd. Plot Opp. Khanda Colony, No.6, Bldg, Dhatav Midc New Panvel Roha C/O Adv. N. A. Kulkarni Wadal Building, 1St Floor, Near Dns Bank, Manpada Road, Dombivli (E)- 421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabar0138A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Against Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. We Note That The Despite Listing The Appeal Several Times & Even Though Notices Were Issued, None Appeared For The Assessee. The Impugned Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Has Been Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), Which Was Levied By The Ao For Failure Of Assessee To Comply/Respond To The Notices Issued By Him U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Even Though, Non-Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee

Cetp response from the assessee. In the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) notes that the only response of the assessee against levy of penalty was that it was not liable to reply to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and thereby it did not even bring ... occasion (supra) and has neither stated to have replied to it nor brought to our notice any reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, we have no other alternative but to confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who held as under

Kedaara Capital Advisors LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Shri Madhur Agarwal brought to our notice that the impugned penalty levied by AO is bad in law for issuing defective notice before levying the penalty. To buttress this contention he drew our attention to the fact that the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the AO u/s 274 read ... stricken-off the inapplicable fault/charges, the assessee was unable to know for what fault/charge the AO was proposing to levy the penalty. So according to Ld AR the show cause notice is bad in law and therefore, the penalty levied on the basis of a defective show cause notice

Swastik Technopack Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalswastik Technopack Pvt. Ltd. A 1, Pankaj Building, Symphony It Park, Near Megarugus Hall, Chandivali, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 Pan: Aaics9255L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Aditya Ramchandran Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 22,71,150/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... considered opinion, this intention of the assessee deserves to be accepted in toto. Hence this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act.” 11. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs and following the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal

Royal Rich Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Royal Rich Developers Dcit Cc- 4(4), Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, बनाम/ Building, Nariman Point, Mahavir General Store, 154, Vs. Mumbai. Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr2578J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2839/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit Cc- 4(4), Royal Rich Developers Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India Building, बनाम/ C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mahavir General Store, Vs. 154, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1316/Mum/2017& others Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. (A) and also finally confirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.08.2016. Now the AO has levied 200% penalty on the said additions. Apart from that, Rs. 70,000/- was disallowed in AY 2006-07 and Rs. 1 lakhs was disallowed ... case and in law, the order imposing penalty requires to be cancelled on account of the fact that in the notice issued for levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act, relevant limb is not specified / marked whereas the basis for imposition of penalty is held

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

this action of AO/CIT(A). We are unable to find that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The only basis of levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was that the claim of the assessee that expenditure incurred for earning exempt income was only ... cases may be made (strategic investment) u/s 14A of the Act only after 12 Feb, 2018 (Refer Maxopp supra). So the question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on a debatable issue when the levied was not settled is unsustainable simply because the claim

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

this action of AO/CIT(A). We are unable to find that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The only basis of levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was that the claim of the assessee that expenditure incurred for earning exempt income was only ... cases may be made (strategic investment) u/s 14A of the Act only after 12 Feb, 2018 (Refer Maxopp supra). So the question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on a debatable issue when the levied was not settled is unsustainable simply because the claim

Shobha Chidambara\M, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

basis that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In further appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 06/09/2021 confirmed the levy of penalty, however, granted partial relief to the assessee by restricting the penalty to 10%, on the basis of order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench

Bp India Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT ) 8(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

Appellant placed on record (a) declaration and undertaking in Form 1 wherein disclosure was made about the present appeal pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, (b) certificate in Form 3 issued under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement

Sudhir Mahamunkar, Thane vs. ITO 26(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Sudhir Mahamunkar V. Income Tax Officer – 26(3)(3) 41/12, Vijay Vilas, Vijay Vilas Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan G.B. Road Kavesar, Thane (W) C-11, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor Mumbai - 400615 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Ajdpm2653F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Purvi Agarwal Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

under provisions of section 44AB of the Act, therefore, assessee has failed to get his accounts audited before the specified date. Accordingly, he levied the penalty u/s.271B of the Act by observing that assessee has not brought any documentary evidences on record which can prove that there was reasonable cause ... u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147, assessing total income of 4 Shri Sudhir Mahamunkar Rs.33,12,960/-. The only Ground of appeal is regarding unjustified levy of penalty of Rs.150,000/ u/s.271B of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6.2 Facts of the Case i) The Appellant is a proprietor of M/s. Balaji Enterprises

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Interjewel Private Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the learned AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Interjwel Private Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Hw – 8012, Eighth Floor, H Income Tax, 5 (2) (1), Tower Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bharat Diamond Bourses Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd5877B

accordingly a penalty of ₹ 69,584,950/– being 2% of the international transaction was levied. The main reason for the levy of penalty was that the transfer-pricing officer has called for specific details pertaining to segmental profitability between associated enterprise and no associated enterprises within the provisions of Section

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

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

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

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

ACIT-CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. K . Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

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