“levy of penalty”

Shri Pravin Champalal Bokadia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-19(2) (5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.07/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2011-12) Shri Pravin Champalal Bokadia, 77, Dr. Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Kumbharwada, Near Cp Tank, Mumbai -400 004. Pan: Aaqpb-4778-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito,Ward 19(2)(5), Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Grant Road(W) Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’ ] dated 20/12/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12 confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. 2 2. Shri Rajiv Khandelwal appearing on behalf ... satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is vague and ambiguous. No penalty is leviable where the satisfaction for levy of penalty does not confirm to the requirement of law. 3. Per contra, Shri R.A.Dhyani representing the Department defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.745/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Room No.65, Moti Mention, 5Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Adwpd-9204-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. I.T.O 19(2)(5), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 17/03/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12, confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. 2 2. File record shows that the notice of hearing ... penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) . The CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of assessee and confirmed levy of penalty, hence, the present appeal. 4. Shri R.A.Dhyani representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has failed

Nathan Robinson Andrews, Thane vs. Ita Ward 29 (2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1424/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Nathan Robinson Andrews, 602, Evelina, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West), Thane – 400 607. Pan: Acrpa- 4572-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. I.T.O. Ward -29(2)(4), Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

erred in dismissing the appeal of assessee on the pretext that the assessee has opted for VSVS to settle the dispute of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whereas, the assessee had field application under VSVS to settle penalty levied u/s. 271B

ITO 25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shobha Chidmabaram, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Shobha Chidambaram The Income Tax Officer 9, Ankur, Hanuman Cross 25(3)(1) Room No. 233, 2Nd Floor, Road, Kautilya Bhavan, 2, Ville Parle (E), Vs. Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400 051 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaapc4727A Assessee By : Shri Mehul Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022

furnished inaccurate particulars of income of ₹9,21,532/-. The assessee challenged the penalty order before the learned CIT (A), who confirmed the levy of penalty but restricted to 10% of the penalty levied based on the order of ITAT. Accordingly, the penalty of ₹2,84,756/- was reduced ... learned CIT (A). 04. We have heard the rival contentions and we find that on principle, the learned CIT (A) has upheld the levy of penalty, however, reduced the amount of penalty to 10% only. This was made so, as the quantum addition itself was reduced by ITAT

Gautam Hiralal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed reversing the findings of the lower authorities

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gautam Hiralal Gandhi The Dcit, 1801, Chandanbala, Circle 22(1) Retilal R Thakkar Marg, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Malabar Hill S.O, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 006 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabpg7668F Assessee By : Shri Rajnikant Chaniyari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the lower authorities. In the present Gautam Hiralal Gandhi; A.Y. 16-17 case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is agitated by the assessee stating that notice issued dated 11th June, 2019, under section

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rational Art & Press Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Rational Art & Press Pvt. Central Circle-8(1), Ltd., Vs. Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 21, Nirmal, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr7185E Appellant Respondent : Mr. T. Shankar.Dr Revenue By : Mr. Siddharth Kothari. Ar Assessee By : 18/05/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 26/05/2022 Pronouncement Order

satisfied with the explanations in respect of additions in the scrutiny assessment and observed that it is a fit case for levy of penalty for concealing the particulars of income and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.01.2020 and the penalty order was passed after ... Assessing officer. 7. Contra the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has submitted information before the AO and the notice issued for levy of penalty is invalid and the CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty relying on the facts and judicial decisions and the Ld.AR relied on the legal decisions

PAN India Networks Infravest Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ty. CIT (OSD) CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepan India Networks Infravest Limited V. Dcit- Central Circle – 7(1) 135, Continental Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aaccp2459H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Bhansali Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

appreciate that in the instant case, the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that a disallowance arising out of bonafide mistake ... assessee the Assessing Officer has not indicated 3 Pan India Networks Infravest Limited on which limb of the penalty he is proceeding to levy the penalty. Further he brought to our notice Page No. 55 o the Paper Book which is the further show cause notice issued by the Assessing

Abacus Internaitional Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

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

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.66,62,768/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions ... opinion of the ld. AR, the net result of such direction would only result in loss and hence, there cannot be any levy of penalty on the same. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had neither declared any losses in the return of income nor the loss was converted

DCIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Dharmanandan Tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fc-7081-82, M.K. Road, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccd 6676 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Rashmikant C. Modi/ Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/05/2022

transaction and there were no adjustments made. In these circumstances, the penalty us.271G should not be levied. (A) Before deciding the issue of levy of penalty whether justified or not, it is essential to know and understand the nature of diamond manufacture and trading business to appreciate the basis issues ... 10Dof IT. Rules 1962 and did not determine the arms length price in respect of the international transactions, but went ahead with the levy of penalty under section 271G of IT. Act, 1961. In this regard, the TPO had another option of either making some comparison of realisation of prices

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Gentech Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 2 M/s. Gentech Laboratories Ltd., 3. We have heard rival submissions ... favour of assessee]” 3.1. In view of the same, we do not find any infirmity in ld. CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 19/05/2022 by way of proper

Great View Properties Pvt. L;Td, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1) (4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegreat View Properties Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 1(1)(4) 4Th Floor, Laxmi Building 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aadcg9697H (Appellant) (Respondent)

September 2021. 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence subject to levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 6. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding that if the claim of expenditure

Mr. Jaikishan S. Vaswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. No.1549/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Jaikishan S. Vaswani…………….……..….…..………………….……Appellant 71, Maker Towers, ‘L’ Block, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. [Pan:Adzpv0486F] Vs. Acit-17(2), Mumbai.…………………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shashi Bekal, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S N Kabra Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that earlier the property of the assessee namely Flat No.72, L Block ... Under the circumstances, in our I.T.A. No.1549/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Jaikishan S. Vaswani view, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, under similar circumstances in the own case of the assessee for Assessment Year

Dy.Citi Cent. Cir-8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Karamtara Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

element embedded in such sales). In such a scenario, when the addition sustained was based on estimation (G.P. %)cannot be a ground for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, we note that in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12, similar penalty

S.F.Dyes /Firm, Mumbai vs. A.C.Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 S.F. Dyes/Firm A.C. Circle 17(1), First Floor, Hague Building, 9 Sprott Bandra Kurla Complex Road ,Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aacfs 5153 J Appellant Respondent

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [National Faceless Appeal Centre] [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14 in relation to levy of penalty S.F. Dyes/Firms 2 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The grounds raised by the assessee ... Assessee had withdrawn the appeal filed before CIT (A) against Assessment Order. Assessee has filed the instant appeal aggrieved with the levy of penalty. especially as it claims that it had requested for an upward revision of the assessed income via rectification application and had requested for non-levy

Omprakash G. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(2) (4), Mumbai

rejected the books of accounts prepared by the assessee. Rather basis of the entire addition and consequent levy of penalty is on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department and no independent enquiry has been made by the AO. 9. Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while deciding ... specific conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income rather made the addition and levied consequent penalty on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department as to the alleged bogus purchases, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed