“levy of penalty”

ITO - 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Film Waves Combines P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

been ordered to be deleted. 3. The assessee has raised the following cross-objection: - 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2014 2. It is submitted that the penalty order passed by the learned AO is barred ... passing of such journal entries, existence of a reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B etc. The Addl. CIT rejected all the contention and levied the penalty in view of the provisions u/s 269SS of the Act by virtue of order dated 28.08.2014. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before

ITO - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Laquilla Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

failure to adhere to the provisions of section 269T of the Act while making the repayment of loan. Therefore, he was pleased to levy a penalty of Rs.5 crores under section 271E of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who deleted the same. Aggrieved, Revenue ... appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. First of all, we note that the issue regarding levy of penalty under section 271E for contravention of section 269T of the Act by making book adjustments / journal entry as done in this case

Mr. Ajit Mahadeo Vaze, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty holding as under: “3.3 I have carefully gone through the assessment order as well as the penalty order and the written submission ... offered to tax. He relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities to contend that this was a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA. No. 35/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the records

DCIT 4 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skf India Ltd., Mumbai

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

conceal or tries to camouflage the nature of expense, then penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not exigible. (d) Levy of penalty is not an automatic consequence when an addition is made by disallowing an expense and by not accepting the interpretation given by the assessee

ITO 8 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Sun Colorants Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

note that the addition in respect of which penalty has been levied was made on estimation basis, and therefore, in our view, levy of penalty cannot be sustained in the facts of the present case. The CIT(A) has noted that the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record

Nandivardhan Construction Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4973/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ Nandivardhan Construction Dcit, Central Circle-2 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Wagle Industrial Estate Stone, Near Gajanan (West), Thane-400604. Maharaj Temple Ram Maruti Road, Thane-West, Thane- 400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1260G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Recording Any Satisfaction Is Bad In Law & The Consequential Penalty Order

very outset, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the penalty notice nowhere speaks about specific limb to levy the penalty because the particular charge was not tick off in the notice, therefore, in the said circumstances, the penalty is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes ... said contentions. The copy of notice dated 25.03.2014 is on the file in which the Assessing Officer nowhere specify any limb to levy the penalty because none of the charge was tick off in the notice. It is not in dispute that the penalty

M/S. Rinira Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD.11(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Rinira Technologies Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 11(1)(2) Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor 110, Shiv Ashish, 66-S.V. Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai - 40058 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcr7702C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty order differs. Hence the penalty order passed is not in accordance with the law especially since he has grossly erred in levying the penalty as per provisions of law and as per various judicial pronouncements. 3. The CIT Appeals has erred in confirming penalty to the extent ... then it will not be either furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income or concealment of income which are the two basic ingredients for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Sir I have given various case laws to substantiate my submission. The leading case

Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Kalyan

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1697/मुं/2018("न.व.2010-11) Shri Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, C/O. Suresh N. Otwani, 305, 3Rd Floor, Adamji Building, 413, Katha Bazar, Mumbai- 400 009 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Abfpr-8942-L बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)- 421 301. : ""थ"/ Respondent

order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1,Thane [in short 'the CIT(A)’] dated 22/12/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2 2. This appeal of the assessee is pending ... undisclosed Long Term Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice dated 22/03/2013 u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. for levy of penalty. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued second notice for levy of penalty on 31/07/2015. The penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for levying

DCIT Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1989/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) आअसं. 1988/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-1,Thane, Room No.22, B- Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Thane (W) – 400 604. बनाम/ Vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Shop No.12, Basement, Tip Top Plaza, Lbs Marg, Thane (W) -400 602. Pan.Aagfj-5549-K : ""थ"/ Respondent

merit. 4 ITA NO. 1988/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA No.1988/Mum/2021 (A.Y- 2011-12): 7. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts germane to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in Assessment Year 2011-12 are identical. The grounds of appeal in Assessment Year

DCIT, Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J. Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1989/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) आअसं. 1988/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-1,Thane, Room No.22, B- Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Thane (W) – 400 604. बनाम/ Vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Shop No.12, Basement, Tip Top Plaza, Lbs Marg, Thane (W) -400 602. Pan.Aagfj-5549-K : ""थ"/ Respondent

merit. 4 ITA NO. 1988/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA No.1988/Mum/2021 (A.Y- 2011-12): 7. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts germane to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in Assessment Year 2011-12 are identical. The grounds of appeal in Assessment Year

Shri Shailesh Jayant Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - 29(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 3817/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2012-13) Shri Shailesh Jayant Shah Vs Ito 29(3)(3), Room No.C-10/307, 210, Shop No.5 Bandra Kurla Complex, Pratyakshakar Iron Market, Masjid Bhavan, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 009 051 Pan : Aaeps1841D Appellant Respondent

penalty order dated 28/09/2015 under section 271B of the Act whereby the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- was levied. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. 4. We have gone through the grounds of appeal as raised before the Tribunal as well ... audited. Failure of the assessee to get the books of account audited attracts the provisions of section 271B. The Assessing Officer has levied the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- which is the minimum under the provisions of section 271B of the Act. 5. Having considered the submissions of the Ld.DR

DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

this context, we refer to Para 10 of the assessment order whereby the AO had referred the matter to your honour for levy of penalty. This is reproduced below: "In respect of certain loan transaction It Is noticed that those are taken/settled otherwise than account payee cheque, regarding with ... initiated u/s 271D/271E should be dropped.” 5. After considering the detailed submissions Ld. ACIT rejected the submissions made by the assessee and he levied the penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions

DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Konwn As to M/S.Lodha Developers Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

this context, we refer to Para 10 of the assessment order whereby the AO had referred the matter to your honour for levy of penalty. This is reproduced below: "In respect of certain loan transaction It Is noticed that those are taken/settled otherwise than account payee cheque, regarding with ... initiated u/s 271D/271E should be dropped.” 5. After considering the detailed submissions Ld. ACIT rejected the submissions made by the assessee and he levied the penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

invoked. Reliance can be placed on :- Manoj S. Gugale Vs. ITO ITA No. 417/Pune/2016 held that "The issue is with respect to levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is engaged in the business of Advertising Agency and during the year ... facts and relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that in the present case the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act was not justified and therefore direct its deletion. Thus, the grounds of assessee are allowed." North Eastern Constructions

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

invoked. Reliance can be placed on :- Manoj S. Gugale Vs. ITO ITA No. 417/Pune/2016 held that "The issue is with respect to levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is engaged in the business of Advertising Agency and during the year ... facts and relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that in the present case the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act was not justified and therefore direct its deletion. Thus, the grounds of assessee are allowed." North Eastern Constructions